The Higher Critics Criticised 







'sm 









0> *, 



r ls 



.0 o 



-*+ ,# 



{!???? 



*+ 












>' •■-• ; 






^ ^ 

& ^ 



'*£> -O 





















- ** 


















- - 'J- 






V ~ \, 






THE 



Higher Critics Criticised 



A Study of the Pentateuch 

For Popular Reading, 



iEING AN INQUIRY INTO THE AGE OF THE SO-CALLED BOOKS OF 

MOSES, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY EXAMINATION OF 

DR. KUENEN'S "RELIGION OF ISRAEL" 

BY 

RUFUS P. STEBBINS, D.D. 



WITH PRELIMINARY CHAPTERS ON 

THE HIGHER CRITICISM 



AND AN APPENDIX CONCERNING 

THE WONDERFUL LAW, 

By H. L. HASTINGS 
Editor of "THE CHRISTIAN," Boston, U.S.A. 



SCRIPTURAL TRACT REPOSITORY 



H. L. Hastings 

BOSTON, MASS , NO. 47 CORNHILL 

Copyrighted /8qj 



Marshall Bros., Agts. 

london, 5a paternoster row, e. c. 

All Rights Reserved 



[Printed in America ] 



■ 



:g&\* 



1* 



ST 



Higher Critics Crttictsed— 2M,— 4-'95 . 
REPOSITORY PRESS, BOSTON, MASS. 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 



THE 

HIGHER CRITICISM. 



BY H. L. HASTINGS, 



He who made man, made him intelligent, and gave him the 
power to perceive, to compare, and to reason. Consequently all 
men have, to a greater or less extent, the ability to examine and 
decide concerning matters which affect their interests. This God- 
given power of examination is the source and foundation of what 
we call criticism. 

The field of criticism is world-wide, and stretches through the 
ages. Everything on earth is liable and subject to just criticism. 
Of course there are matters which are not worth a critical 
thought ; and there are also other matters concerning which men 
should offer criticism with care and respect. A prisoner at the bar 
would not be expected to criticise the law under which he was 
tried, or the judge by whom he was to be sentenced, with as much 
freedom as a man at liberty would criticise some passing circum- 
stance, or some unsupported statement; for the fact that certain 
principles had been embodied in legal enactments, would be evi- 
dence that they had already been to some extent examined and 
discussed, and that they were not merely the casual utterances of 
a single individual. 

There is perhaps no more important field for criticism than that 
which is afforded by the Sacred Books which have come to be 
regarded in various quarters as of superhuman origin and divine 
authority. These books, whether in India, China, or elsewhere, 
whether written in Sanscrit, Chinese, Hebrew, Greek, or Arabic, 
make such demands upon the faith and obedience of men, that it 
is an obvious duty to scrutinize their claims, and refuse to admit 
them unless they are solidly established. The critical examination 
of such documents comprehends various departments. First, there 



X THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

is tlie careful study of the documents themselves, as translated into 
the common speech of the common people. Second, there is the 
critical study of the original records from which these translations 
were made. Third, there is the investigation of the history, and the 
record of the transmission of these documents, which involves the 
tracing of them from age to age to demonstrate their authenticity 
or spuriousness. Fourth, there is another form of criticism which 
aims to determine from internal evidence, the origin, date, author- 
ship, and reliability of such documents as are submitted to its test. 

All these forms and methods of criticism are legitimate ; all are 
useful ; all have their advantages ; and all are liable to abuse and 
misconception. Hence while the right of criticism is undoubted, 
and the duty of criticism is imperative, yet it is important that we 
carefully guard against the abuse of things which in themselves 
are right, proper, and important. 

It therefore appears that the field for criticism is very wide ; and 
persons who have critical tastes have abundant opportunity for the 
exercise of their abilities. There are manj' books which come to us 
claiming great authority, and which are so vast in extent that schol- 
ars might spend their lives in their investigation. For instance they 
might examine the Rig Veda, the foundation of Brahminism, con- 
taining ten hundred and twenty-eight hymns, averaging ten stanzas 
each. They might extend their examination to the Code of Manu, 
comprised in some twenty big law books, and dating back to b. c. 
400 or 500. They might investigate the story of Ramayana, that 
most sacred poem of 24,000 verses, of which it is said whoever 
reads or hears it will be freed from all sin. They might examine 
the Maha-bharata, a poem of 220,000 lines, or seven times as long 
as the Iliad and Odyssey combined, a copy of it filling eight good 
sized volumes. Or they might turn, for a change, to the Upani- 
shads, " the kernel of the Vedas," a series of mystical Hindu books 
" that no man can number ; " one hundred and fifty of which have 
been catalogued, some of them comprising hundreds of pages. Or 
they might study the Puranas, or Hindu traditional stories, which 
date from a. d. 600 down, of which there are eighteen Maha or 
principal Puranas, containing 1,600,000 lines, and other minor 
Puranas, containing about as many more. There were, the Hindu 
sages tell us, a billion of lines, but the rest were mercifully kept in 
heaven for home consumption ! 

Having examined all these sacred books, which are held by their 
votaries to be far superior to anything contained in the Hebrew 
and Christian Scriptures, they might turn to the Chinese Cyclo- 
pedia of Ancient and Modern Literature with its 6,109 volumes, 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XI 

including eighteen volumes of index ; and having spent six or eight 
years learning the ten thousand different Chinese characters in com- 
mon use, and fifteen or twenty years in learning to read the language 
fluently, they might, with the aid of the latest Imperial Dictionary, 
containing 43,960 characters, go through these publications, and 
subject them to the crucial tests of the Higher Criticism. When this 
was done they might visit the British Museum and turn their 
attention to the Jangyn, or Cyclopedia of Thibetian Buddhism, — 
a delightful little work comprised in 225 volumes, each two feet 
long, and six inches thick. These, — which are held to be fully equal, 
if not superior to, the Hebrew Scriptures, by some of the skep- 
tics of the present day who know little of either, — would fur- 
nish a very inviting field for the exercise of the critical faculty. 
And so long as the vast multitudes of China, India, and Thibet 
accept and embrace these wonderful productions, receiving them 
with unquestioning faith, it would certainly seem quite proper for 
men of critical and philanthropic inclinations to investigate the 
pretensions of these remarkable volumes, and inform the multi- 
tudes who accept them as to their authenticity, inerrancy, and 
authority. 

When the precise character of all these sacred writings shall 
have been ascertained and definitely determined, their dates being 
assigned and their authorship established; when the writings of 
Confucius and Zoroaster have been inspected ; when the Zend- 
avesta, the Koran, and the book of Mormon have all passed the 
crucial test of the Higher Criticism, it may then be well to direct at- 
tention to the lost literature of past ages; the acres of Egyptian 
hieroglyphics inscribed upon the walls of hidden tombs and 
ruined temples ; the cuneiform inscriptions of ancient Persia ; the 
records of the Babylonians and the Hittites, from which the mists 
of ages are slowly clearing ; and the vast mass of Assyrian litera- 
ture which has come to us from the ruins of Nineveh the buried 
city. And when these records are thoroughly investigated, and 
compared with the unwritten traditions of every heathen land 
beneath the sun, and their position thoroughly established by the 
" consensus " of the critics of our times, we shall then be pre- 
pared for a comprehensive and comparative view of the religions 
of the world, and the Sacred Books whence men derive their ideas 
of supernatural revelation. 

It is a remarkable fact that the Higher Critics of the present 
day have hitherto failed to thoroughly explore these vast and 
inviting fields, but have mainly devoted their attention to the 
examination and discussion of sixty-six little, ins ignijicant pamphlets, 



Xll THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

the sacred literature of a small, isolated, scatterea, anu perse- 
cuted nation, which in numbers is positively insignificant in 
comparison to the vast multitudes which accept the voluminous 
sacred books we have mentioned. And it is a somewhat remark- 
able fact that this mighty mass of Assyrian, Babylonian, Chinese, 
Hindu, and Thibetian sacred literature escapes criticism, and some- 
times receives actual commendation, while the only documents 
which are especially criticised, and whose errancy and mythical 
and unhistorical character is pointed out with unsparing zeal, are 
the records and laws of a nation which has had no political existence 
for nearly two thousand years, which -does not control or possess a 
government, a city, a country, or even an island on the face of 
the earth. Why this book, of all others, should be subjected to 
such criticism as no other book has ever endured, and why this 
must run the gauntlet and receive the blows of friends and foes, 
while a vast mass of sacred oriental literature passes unnoticed 
and unscathed, is a phenomenon which baffles the comprehension of 
ordinary minds. 

But we have to deal with existing facts ; and as the Higher 
Critics of the present day do not trouble themselves to explore, 
dissect, and subject to microscopic examination the sacred writings, 
traditions, and theories of the hundreds of millions which compose 
the vast majority of the human family ; and as they do not trouble 
themselves to point out the inconsistencies, discrepancies, and 
errancies of those books, we are limited to a much narrower range 
in the consideration of the performances of the Higher Critics 
whose sphere of action is by their own choice thus circumscribed 
and limited. 

The fact that these critics have themselves learned all they know 
of criticism and science, in schools, colleges, and universities which 
exist only under the light and influence of this Book; and that 
most of them depend for the leisure they enjoy, the libraries they 
explore, the salaries they receive, and the bread that they eat, 
upon foundations and institutions endowed by men who loved 
and reverenced these very writings ; might itself inspire a de- 
gree of reverential deference for such venerable documents ; and 
the fact that these same critics, if born in any land where these 
writings are unknown, might have been exposed in the fields, flung 
out into the city streets, or drowned in the nearest horse-pond 
before they had time to criticise anything, would seem at least a 
sufficient reason why they should undertake with candor and re- 
spectful consideration the examination of a Book, to the influence 
of which they may owe their very existence, or without which they 



the rriGiiER criticism. xm 

might to-day have been howling and whirling in some circle of 
Dervishes, or sitting besmeared with cow dung on the banks of the 
Ganges, and seeking purification and salvation amid the obscenities 
and idolatries of heathen lands. 

The work of criticising such writings is not to be rashly under- 
taken. It is an occupation for men who speak the words of truth 
and soberness. These records are hoary with age. They have 
survived the wreck of nations and empires. They have been and 
still are regarded with reverence, not merely by ignorant and 
degraded races, the worshipers of idols and the regarders of 
fetishes, but by the most intelligent and intellectual peoples on the 
face of the earth. The only nations which at the present time 
stand in the forefront of the world in art, in science, and in litera- 
ture, are the nations which have read and cherished these books. 
They have entered into the civilization, the literature, and the 
jurispruden?e of the civilized world ; and it is impossible now to find 
a nation no.ed for art, invention, science, and progress, which has 
not paid reverence to these books. 

These books are also as a literary phenomenon worthy of special 
consideration. Other nations have their sacred books, and keep 
them. The writings of Mohammed, or Confucius ; the teachings 
of Buddha and Zoroaster; the Vedas and other sacred writings of 
the Hindoos, have never been translated by their own disciples into 
the languages of the world. To translate them would be to 
degrade them and destroy their efficacy. If we have the Koran of 
Mohammed in our own tongue it is because some Christian has 
translated it. If we have the sacred books of India it is because 
some man, trained under the light of the Scriptures, has taken the 
trouble to present them in an English dress. If we have the 
teachings of Confucius we must thank, not his disciples, but the 
disciples of Jesus of Nazareth for bringing them to our notice. 
But this book has been translated, printed, and disseminated, as no 
other book has ever been. Hence a book so remarkable, so unique 
in its character and position, while it is subject to the most search- 
ing criticism, is not to be regarded as a new or strange or untried 
volume, but as one which has lived in the blaze of investigation 
for two millenniums ; which has fought its way through the storms 
and convulsions of ages and generations ; and has maintained its 
position in the face of all attacks and oppositions, until after 
having endured ten times as much assault, resistance, and criticism 
as any other book that ever was made, we have to-day ten times as 
many of them in existence as of any other book that ever was 
printed. 



XI T THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

These facts do not exempt the book from critical examination, 
but they should ensure it a decently respectful treatment at the 
hands of candid and impartial critics ; and they should serve as a 
caution to persons who suppose that every question concerning 
this book can be settled at short notice and with little difficulty. 
For a book which has held its way and maintained its position for 
so many centuries, is not likely to be disposed of by a sneer or 
demolished by a pamphlet. The man who undertakes the work of 
criticism in the spirit of rashness and self-confidence, may well 
remember that he who girdeth on the harness is not to boast like 
him that putteth it off; and the man who in a more reverent spirit 
supposes that he has mastered this entire subject, may yet learn 
that there are in it judgments which are unsearchable, and ways 
which are past finding out. 

There are signs of the existence of a mortal fear among some of 
the younger students of theology, that in the rapid progress of 
scientific criticism they may be left behind. They have heard 
about Galileo and Copernicus, the decrees and anathemas of coun- 
cils, bulls against comets, and similar instances of "religious" 
bigotry, until, — forgetting that these were simply instances of old 
science disputing the claims of new science, a phenomenon which 
occurs continually, — they have determined that nobody shall get 
the start of them in the race of modern scientific investigation. 
Hence, whatever assertions or demands a scientist or critic may 
make, they hasten to accept his statements and obey his behests. 
But this plan of unconditional surrender may be carried too far ; 
and when men believe everything which scientific men have 
guessed at, and admit and endorse the vagaries of scientific vision- 
aries, before even their authors and inventors are satisfied of their 
truth, they remind one of the mythical coon which Davy Crockett 
treed, and which, on learning who the hunter was, said, " Colonel, 
you need not fire, I will come down." It is not best for men to 
part with their common sense or lose their balance for fear of 
being laughed at a thousand years hence. It is safe to hasten 
slowly. Everything that can be shaken will be shaken, but some 
things that cannot be shaken will remain ; and it is possible that 
there will be, after all the whirlwinds of criticism, some things 
which cannot be shaken ; and the only way to find out what they 
are is to wait, and investigate and see. 

A story is told of a lunatic who, finding his way into a crowded 
church and grasping one of the pillars supporting the gallery said, 
" I am going to pull the house down ! " Timid women screamed 
and shouted; but an old minister calmed the tumult by calling 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XV 

out, " Let him try ! let him try ! " So there are men who are per- 
fectly willing to have the critics try their hands at the Bible, and 
will abide the results. If they can grind it to powder let tbem do 
so : if they grind themselves to powder it will only be another 
instance of the rat gnawing the file. 

But if men wish their theories admitted they must prove them ; 
if they wish their ideas accepted they must show that they are 
worthy of all acceptation. There are critics who talk very loudly 
against the infallibility of others, and of course such persons can 
make no claim to infallibility for themselves ; and there are per- 
sons who have had such acquaintance with the Scriptures that they 
will not lightly abandon the faith on which their souls have been 
stayed. They have been ready to give to every man a reason for 
the hope that is within them, and they have a right to demand that 
those who would unsettle their confidence should give them abun- 
dant evidence for their new position. 

One thing somewhat perplexing to the average mind, is the air 
of semi-omniscience with which this whole subject of Biblical 
Criticism is discussed in certain quarters. We are assured that 
"all thinkers" think thus and so; that "all leading minds" 
have reached certain conclusions ; that " there is no dispute among 
learned men" about these matters. But if the whole subject be so 
plain that it is beyond question in the minds of the learned, they 
must be able first, to come to an agreement among themselves, and 
second, to bring the facts and arguments on which they rest their 
conclusions to the understanding of caudid men of average intelli- 
gence and studious habits. If a thing is demonstrably true, then 
its truth can in some way be shown. Ordinary people wish for 
argument, not authority. They are not so positive that " all 
learned men " are agreed upon this matter ; nor are they entirely 
certain that all these eminent critics are agreed among themselves ; 
and they are not so anxious to know what certain wise men believe, 
as they are to know why they believe it. 

This desire seems to be reasonable and proper, and any man 
who sets himself up as an authority in these matters, should be 
able not only to state his position, but also to defend it, and that 
by arguments which are appreciable, and can be grasped by the 
common mind. 

There are those who believe that they are forbidden to call any 
man master, or to take the unsupported assertions even of learned 
men without a question. They admit that learned men have great 
advantages, and are worthy of great respect ; but they have never 
known that learned men were entirely exempt from prejudice and 



XVI THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

error. In all the contentions existing among different classes of 
Christian people, they have found men of no small learning ar- 
ranged in opposition to each other ; and it is only a mark of com- 
mon prudence to insist upon knowing, so far as possible, some of 
the facts on which such tremendous conclusions are based. 

Moreover it has come to pass within the last few years, that 
many positions taken by " learned men " have been distinctly re- 
pudiated by other men equally learned; and in many cases new 
discoveries have shown that with all their learning these men were 
ignorant of many important facts. The spade of the explorer 
has sometimes played havoc with the lofty assertions of scholarly 
men, who have often proved themselves far from infallible. They 
have presented theories which they could not prove, but which 
subsequent investigations have disproved. Their insuperable objec- 
tions have melted away in the light of extended research. Among 
themselves they have propounded theories variant and self-contra- 
dictory, and they are to-day full of disagreement and dispute ; and 
their conclusions concerning things which they regard as settled 
may yet require revision. Intelligent and candid people are pre- 
pared for discovery, suggestion, proof, and argument, but they are 
not disposed to yield the whole matter in dispute because some- 
body says they must, or because " all the learned " have agreed 
upon it. They have their doubts whether learning is confined to 
one particular school of thought. They admit that they may be 
in error, but if so, they ask to be instructed, not commanded. 
They are willing to listen to advice, but are not prepared to accept 
assertions as authority beyond which no man can go. Hence they 
wait, not merely till learned men decide what the truth is, but till 
learned men are able to show that truth to other people in an 
intelligible and convincing form. They have become enamored of 
the Great Teacher of whom it was said, " Never man spake like this 
man," and yet, "The common people heard him gladly. " If Jesus 
of Nazareth was utterly mistaken about the writings and authority 
of Moses and the prophets, they wish to know it ; and they wish to 
understand precisely in what light this Great Teacher may be 
regarded. Many have nothing to hinder them from accepting 
truth whatever it may be. They are bound by no creed, and have 
sworn no adherence to any confession of faith. They have no 
pecuniary interest in declaring certain opinions, and are under no 
constraint, while believing one thing in private, to teach another in 
public. They have not even accepted a creed "for substance of 
doctrine," reserving the right to believe what they please concern- 
ing the subjects to which it refers. They have renounced the 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XV11 

hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling 
the Word of God deceitfully, but by the manifestation of the truth 
they would commend themselves to every man's conscience in the 
sight of God. They are, therefore, prepared to hear the truth, 
embrace it, and confess it. They have no fear of sacrificing office, 
position, or salary by frankly declaring their faith and hope ; for 
they have already sacrificed such things, and counted them as 
loss and dross. They do not stand in awe of great men, nor fear to 
embrace new ideas ; but they do insist on knowing what they be- 
lieve, and why they believe it, and in having such a knowledge that 
they can tell it to others plainly, and openly, not with bated breath, 
guarded phrase, and studied circumlocution ; but they wish frankly 
to say what they have to say, and not feel obliged to explain it 
away or take it back to avoid unpleasant consequences. Such men 
desire to know what they believe, and whereof they affirm. To 
tell them that the Rev. Professor this one, or the Rev. Doctor that 
one, and all the learned Rabbis have agreed and settled the matter, 
is so much wind. The question is not who? but why? and they 
wish for sound arguments and solid facts, rather than great author- 
ities and big names. 

It is not needful to go wild with panic over the results of the 
Higher Criticism, or of any other criticism. If these gentlemen 
throw away half or two-thirds of the Bible, there will still be more 
left than most people are likely to study carefully or practice 
faithfully; and besides if half the books of the Bible can be 
thrown overboard, it will save a large amount of labor for those 
expositors who spend so much time trying to prove that the book 
does not mean what it says, nor say what it means ; and there will 
be quite as much consistency exhibited in rejecting the writing, as 
there is in accepting it, and then perverting its sense. 

There are men whose knowledge of the things of God is not 
dependent entirely upon books or critics. They know Whom they 
have believed, and they are not likely to be ' stampeded ' by any 
criticism that may be offered, whether constructive or destructive. 
" He that believeth shall not make haste." Inertia is said to be 
one of the properties of matter. It is probably also one of the 
properties of mind. Large bodies move slowly, and sometimes 
do not move at all. The best of men, with the best of causes 
and the clearest of arguments, have sometimes found that trying 
to change the minds of the mass of a community is much like 
kicking a dead elephant; and men who have no higher mission 
than to pull the Bible to pieces, may find that the old book will stand 
a deal of rough usage, and not be much the worse of wear. And 



XV111 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

such is the iuherent vitality and power of this Word, that men 
have been known to have been saved and utterly changed in heart, 
and life, and aim, by a single sentence from that book, or by a 
smgle chapter or verse. The most destructive of the critics will 
perhaps leave us as much as that ; or possibly we shall keep it, 
whether they leave it or not ; for, that there is something in that 
Book which lays hold upon the human mind, and conquers and 
subjects the human heart, seems evident even from some of the 
critics themselves, who, after they have definitely asserted that the 
book is mostly a forgery and a deception, full of errors and false- 
hoods, go right on reading and preaching it, and drawing their sal- 
aries for so doing, and saying it is the best book in the world, and 
contains the revelation of God to man. Blood is thicker than 
water, and common sense and conviction are sometimes mightier 
than criticism. 

It must also be remembered that we are not dealing with a single 
book, but with sixty-six different books. The only way to confute 
them is to take them one by one. They stand together it is true, 
but they do not necessarily fall together; and if fifty of them in 
the crucible of the Higher Critic vanish like the baseless fabric of 
a vision, there are sixteen left, and they will be enough to take us 
through ; so that if the hurricane of Higher Criticism blows away 
the masts, sails, and rigging, the old ship may still outride the 
storm, be able to pick up some of the drowning critics, and make 
her port under a jury mast. Hence the prospect seems very hope- 
ful. Let our good friends the Higher Critics work away. If they 
can eat the Bible up, then we are better off without it, and if it 
really proves to be a file, they will know it when they see a heap 
of white powder beside it. 

The sublime assurance with which some modern critics announce 
their judgment concerning the origin, authorship and authenticity 
of the Holy Scriptures, implies the possession of great self-confi- 
dence, if not absolute omniscience. They speak as if the ques- 
tions under consideration were definitely settled, and as if only the 
ignorant, prejudiced, and bigoted, could for a moment presume to 
question the soundness of their conclusions, or the accuracy of 
their assertions. Thus questions of vast importance and wide- 
reaching interest are decided with an assumption of infallibility 
or inerrancy, which ordinary mortals scarcely dare to claim. And 
all this is done in the name of Higher Criticism, and exact Bibli- 
cal science, by men whose greatness is supposed to be so manifest 
that the very mention of their names should awe people into silence 
and submission. 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XIX 

When the question was raised, whether modern Assyriologists 
had really found the key to the Cuneiform writings of Nineveh 
and Babylon, a method was devised by which the matter could be 
tested. In March, 1857, Mr. Fox Talbot sent to the Royal Asiatic 
Society, in a sealed packet, his translation of a cuneiform inscrip- 
tion on a cylinder containing about a thousand lines, which had 
been lithographed by Sir Henry Rawlinson, and which bore the 
name of Tiglath Pileser I. As Sir Cornewall Lewis had questioned 
the accuracy of these Assyrian translations, Mr. Talbot suggested 
to Sir Henry Rawlinson the making of separate and independent 
translations of this particular inscription. His own translation 
was already made and sealed. Sir Henry Rawlinson, Rev. Edward 
Hincks, D. D., and Dr. Julius Oppert, of the University of Bonn, 
were each requested to make a translation of the same inscription. 
It was agreed that they were not to communicate with each other 
in any way concerning the translation, and each was to forward his 
translation under seal, to be opened by a committee of Fellows of 
the Royal Asiatic Society, consisting of Dean Milman, Rev. Dr. 
Whewell, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge; Professor H. H. 
Wilson, Sir J. G. Wilkinson the Egyptologist; and Mr. George 
Grote, the Historian. 

The translations were duly made : the packets were opened by 
the committee ; the separate translations were read and found to 
agree in their essential particulars, having only such slight varia- 
tions as demonstrated their entire independence. This settled the 
question. The mystery of the long-lost Assyrian language was 
solved. 

A TEST FOR THE HIGHER CRITICS. 

Such a test as this commands the respect and confidence of 
thoughtful and intelligent men. And now, if a dozen of the more 
eminent Higher Critics of the present day could be shut up in 
separate cells, and fed like the Hebrew captives in Babylon upon 
pulse and cold water, or some diet favorable to bodily health and 
mental activity; furnished with Hebrew Bibles and Greek Testa- 
ments ; and supplied with paper and pens, and ink and scissors, 
and paste-pots and brushes, and deprived of all access to the 
writings of German Theologians, English and American Higher 
Critics, and French infidels, back to Jean Astruc himself; and 
then could be told to stay where they were till each could settle 
the question of the authorship, authenticity, inspiration, and 
inerrancy of each part of the sacred Scriptures for himself ; and to 
cut and slash, and criticise and examine, and sort and winnow, 
until they could give us at last the clean wheat : a Bible on which 



XX THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

we could rely in life, in death, and at the day of judgment: — then, 
when they had all finished their work, and the dozen books were 
produced for examination and comparison, we could tell whether 
they had really obtained the key of knowledge, or whether they 
had simply produced twelve specimens of literary patch-work and 
botch-work, which, when compared and combined, would furnish a 
theological crazy-quilt beside which Joseph's coat of many colors 
would be as plain as a Quaker dress pattern. 

"Will these gentlemen ever try the experiment? Perhaps not. 
Indeed it is hardly needful that they should do it. We have al- 
ready had specimens of their work, and a more amazing tangle of 
inconsistencies and contradictions can hardly be found in ancient 
or modern literature. The old disputes concerning the authorship 
of the Iliad and the Odyssey, which some one summed up as 
having demonstrated that the poems were "not written by Homer, 
but by another man of the same name, and living at the same 
time and place," were lucidity itself, compared with the revelations 
of the Higher Critics concerning the origin and authorship of the 
sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament. There are plenty 
of people who may be unable to judge as to the correctness of the 
position occupied by any one of these learned critics, but there 
can be no possible difficulty about deciding that when each one 
of a dozen contradicts all the others, they cannot all be infallible ; 
and here is the opportunity for the common reader to exercise a 
little common sense. 

Meantime while learned men are waiting for the verdict, one 
poor, insignificant mortal has taken the trouble to keep tally for 
the Higher Critics, and give us a kind of census as well as a consen- 
sus, of their number and their doings. One need not be a great 
man or a critic to do that. Any one can count, and cut notches in 
a stick, even if he cannot play in the game ; and so we have a list 
of the doings of a few of the Higher Critics, who are getting our 
articles of faith ready for us, and who propose to let us know in 
due time just how much Bible we are to be allowed to believe, and 
how much " inerrancy " there is about it, after the " unhistorical " 
portions are eliminated. 

In the "Methodist Review" for March -April, 1891, page 265, 
the late learned and lamented editor, J. W. Mendenhall, D. D. 
LL.D., while speaking of "The intrusion of the hypothetical 
spirit in the investigation of Biblical Doctrines, and of the origin 
of Biblical Literature," thus illustrates the uncertainty of this sci- 
entific guess-work, by which certain critics have endeavored to de- 
termine infallibly the origin and authorship of the various books 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXI 

of the Old and New Testaments, until, "where truth ought to he 
found as transparent as sunlight, we find it clouded and hidden in 
the thick net-work of rhetorical and fallacious theorizing/" 

" The extent to which theory has been applied to the date, com- 
position, and authorship of the several hooks of the Bible is 
startling when viewed in its aggregate result. Without pretending 
to exhaust the list we submit the following as our summary of the 
theories that have been invented respecting each book of the Bible 
since the rise of the Tubingen school, and as showing the untrust- 
worthiness of the results of the critics who assume to be investi- 
gators of the books. As to Genesis, we record 16 theories ; Exo- 
dus, 13; Leviticus, 22 ; Numbers, 8; Deuteronomy, 17; — total on 
Pentateuchal books, 76. As to Joshua, 10; Judges, 7; Ruth, 4; 
1 and 2 Samuel, 20; 1 and 2 Kings, 24; 1 and 2 Chronicles, 17; 
Ezra, 14; Nehemiah, 11; Esther, 6; — total on historical books, 
113. As to Job, 26; Psalms, 19; Proverbs, 24; Ecclesiastes, 21 ; 
Song of Solomon, 18 ; — total on poetical books, 108. As to Isaiah, 
27; Jeremiah, 24; Lamentations, 10; Ezekiel, 15; Daniel, 22; — 
total on the greater prophetical books, 98. As to Hosea, 13; 
Amos, 15; Joel, 18; Obadiah, 9; Jonah, 14; Micah, 12; Nahum, 
10; Habakkuk, 13; Zephaniah, 9; Haggai, 6; Zechariah, 14; 
Malachi, 11 ; — total on Minor prophetical books, 144. Grand total 
of the theories respecting the Old Testament books, 539. The 
work of the theorist as regards the New Testament is equally com- 
prehensive and instructive. As to Matthew, we discover 7 theo- 
ries; Mark, 10; Luke, 9; John, 15; — total as to the gospels, 11. 
As to the Acts, 12. As to the epistle to the Romans, 15 ; 1 and 2 
Corinthians, 18; Galatians. 11; Ephesians, 8; Philippians, 8 ; Co- 
lossians, 12 ; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 9 ; 1 and 2 Timothy, 12 ; Titus, 
6; Philemon, 4; Hebrews, 8; — total as to Paul's epistles, 111. As 
to James, 5 ; 1 and 2 Peter, 7 ; 1, 2, and 3 John, 13 ; Jude, 7 ; Rev- 
elation, 12 ; — total, 44. The number of theories applied to the 
New Testament books is 208. Adding to 539, we have a total of 
747 theories applied to the biblical books since 1850, or within 
forty years. Of the 747 theories 603 are defunct, and many of 
the remaining 144 are in the last stages of degeneracy and disso- 
lution." 

" It will assist the reader in estimating the work of the critics to 
remember that nearly one hundred theories die annually, many of 
them never advancing beyond infancy, and others being stricken 
with leprosy as for the first time they have taken hold of the horns 
of the altar of the Lord. We have by no means recorded all the 
inventions of the critics since Baur's day, but we have given 



XX11 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

enough to show that theory is the chief instrument of the critic. 
He does not always seek facts or truths, but is wedded to his 
hypothesis of the biblical question. Of the large number of theo- 
ries here given no two of them agree, every one being distinct and 
separate from all the others. We have little doubt, if a correct 
enumeration of the theories that have been proclaimed during the 
last forty years could be obtained, it would be found to exceed tico 
thousand, for we suspended our examination long before the end 
had been reached. In these startling facts the orthodoxist finds 
abundant reason for refusing to follow the leadership of men 
whose chief business is to contradict truth, fact, history, and the 
fundamental principles of the Christian religion, with no stronger 
warrant than their own fancy or the limitations of their special 
education/'' 

This, then, is a summary of the work of these learned critics, 
some of whom, smoke-dried and beer-sodden, handle the oracles of 
God with little reverence, and instead of trembling at His words, 
which shall judge them at the last day, seem to have no more 
respect for the messages of those whom God has set " over the 
nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and 
to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant " (Jer. i. 10), 
than they have for an erotic song of a licentious pagan poet, or 
some legend of heathen mythology. And these men, who contra- 
dict each other at every breath, and devour each other's theories 
as fast as they are born ; ask us to accept assertions without facts, 
arguments without proofs, and crude speculations unsustained by 
historical testimony ; and seek to unsettle our faith in those sub- 
lime and awful "Scriptures of truth" which have plowed their 
way through ages and centuries, leaving the mighty demonstra- 
tions of their divine authority and omniscient foresight in the des- 
olations of Nineveh, the ruins of Babylon, the destruction of 
Tyre, the degradation of Egypt, the downfall of Jerusalem, the 
dispersion of Israel, the decline and fall of mighty Rome ; and 
in hundreds of instances where history answers to prophecy as the 
mirrored likeness answers to the human face ; — and they expect 
men to leave their anchorage, slip their cable, and go drifting out 
upon an unsounded sea of vague speculation, Mild hypothesis, 
misty theorizing, and uncertain assertion, there to float rudderless, 
and without chart or compass, into regions of fog and darkness, 
of skepticism and unbelief. 

Out of such a chaos of critical conclusion it is not easy for the 
ordinary mind to recall or remember anything. We therefore copy 
from the New York Independent a summary of " the generally 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 



accepted views of progressive Old Testament scholars," giving " the 
literary results of advanced research in a nutshell," as presented 
in the new Einleitung in das Alte Testament, by Prof. C. H. Cornill, 
of the University of Konigsberg, who thus presents a 

BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 
WRITINGS ACCORDING TO THE RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL INTRO- 
DUCTION. 

PERIOD BEFORE THE KINGS. 

The song of Deborah. 

THE EARLIEST PERIOD UNDER THE KINGS. 

David's authentic Song of the Bow, II Sam. i. 19-27. 

Solomon's authentic Temple Dedication Prayer, I Kings viii. 12-13 (LXX.) 

PERIOD OF THE DIVIDED KINGDOMS. 

Israel. Judah. 

The so-called Blessing of Jacob, Gen. xlix, 1-27. 
The Book of the Covenant, Exod. xxi-xxiii. 
The Book of the wars of Jehovah. | The Book of the Just. 

THE ORIGINAL BALAAM PROPHECIES. 



The oldest Ephraimitic historical nar- 
atives, worked by E. into Judges 
and Samuel. 

Ephraimitic accounts concerning Eli- 
sha and Elijah embodied in I Kings 
xvii to II Kings xiii. 

The so-called Blessing of Moses, Deut. 
xxxiii; about 800. 

In the time of J ehoshaphat the fol- 
lowing : 

About 760. Amos from Judah, but 
laboring in Israel exclusively. 

About 750, the great historical work 
of the Elohist. 

II osea i-iii. 

In the anarchy after the downfall 
of the Dynasty of Jehu the follow- 
ing : 

Between 738 and 735, Hos. iv-xiv. 



Jahvist Ji in the time of Jehoshaphat, 
about 850. 



In the time of Uzziah and Jeroboam 

II the following ■: 
About 780, the anonymous Jewish 

prophet in Isa. xv-xvi, the oldest 

prophetic writing extant. 



In the year of Uzziah'' & dearth (735?) 
Isaiah's consecration as a prophet. 
From 735 to 722: 

Isa. vi, 1, 2, 3; ii-iv; v; ix, 7-10; 

iv, 17; vii; viii, 1-9; vi; xi, 1-9; 

i, 4-9; xviii-xxxii. 
Before 722: Micah i-iii. 
722. 



AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF SAMARIA 

722, Isa. xiv, 28-32 (?). 

Still in the time of Ahaz J2 according to Budde ; at any rate before 700, 

The original Obadiah, according to Ewald. 



XXIV THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

IN THE TIME OF SARGON, 722-705. 

Isa. xvi, 13, 14 ; [xxi, 11-17] ; xx (from the year 711) ; x, 6-34 ; xiv, 24, 27, (?). 

IN THE TIME OF SENNACHERIB. 

Before 704, Isa. xviii; xxxix, 5-7. 

Before 701, Isa. xxii, 15-25. 

701, Isa. xxviii, 31; xxxvii, 6, 7 (?), 22-32; xxii, 1-14. 

After 701, Isa. i, 10-17; xix. 

Still in tbe times of Hezekiah (?), the Judean Temple narratives in II Kings 
xi-xii; xvi; xviii, 4, 14-16; and an account of the deliverance of the 
Temple and of Jerusalem, which is worked up in II Kings xviii, 17-19, 37; 
possibly also in I Kings, 6, 7 (?). 

IN THE TIME OF MANASSEH. 

Alicah vi, 1-vii, 6. 

Isa. lvi, 9-lvii, 13 (?); lix 3-16a (?). 

About 650 E 2 , a revision of E. by an Ephraimite who had remained in Pal- 
estine on the basis of the development of prophetic thought. 

J, Union and harmonizing of JiandJzin the Primitive Narratives, and 
other younger Jahvistic and pre-Deuteronomic pieces. 

Rj, Union and harmonizing of J and E; the second half of the seventh cen- 
tury being yet pre-Deuteronomic. 

IN THE TIME OF JOSIAH. 

About 630, Zephaniah. 

627, Jeremiah's consecration as a prophet. 

About 624, Nahum. 

621, Proclamation of the original Book of Deuteronomy, which had been 

written a short time before, and the reform of the cultus based thereon. 
Song of Hannah, I Sam. ii, 1-10, in the timeof Josiah (?), but certainly 

pre-exilic. 

IN THE TIME OF JEHOIACHIM. 

Jer. xiii. 

Psa. lxxxix (?). 

597, Ezekiel banished together with the king. 

IN THE TIME OF ZEDEKIAH. 

592, Ezekiel's consecration as a prophet in Babylonia. 

Before 586, Jer. xx, 7-18; xxi, 11-xxiii, 40; xxiv, xlix, 34-39; xxxii; 
xxxiii, 4-13. 

AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 

Jer. xxx-xxxi. 

BABYLONIAN EXILE. 

First Half. 
About 580, Isa. xxiii. 

October, 572, Composition and completion of the Book of Ezekiel. 
April, 570, Addition of supplement to Ezek. xxix, 17-21. 
The two separate editions and revisions of the original books of Deuterono- 
my by Dh and Dp. 
Lamentations 2 and 4 younger than Ezekiel ; 1 and 5 soon after. 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXV 

Second Half. 
The redaction of the great exilic historical work written in the spirit of 

Deuteronomy for the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges by Rd. and for 

kings by Rd. (?). 
Pi, The first systematic compilation of a priestly character. 
Biographical parts of the book of Jeremiah, and practically the completion 

of the whole book. 
Isa. xxi, 1-10 (and 11-17 ?). 
Isa. xl-xlviii, between 546 and 538. 
Isa. xiii, 2-14; xxiii; and xxxiv-xxxv, shortly before 538. 

THE PERSIAN PERIOD. 

After 538, Psa. cxxxvii (?). 

After 536, Isa. xlix-lxvi. 

September to December, 520, Haggai. 

November, 520, to December, 518, Zech. i-viii. 

About 500 Pi, written in Babylon. 

Before 458, Malachi. 

UNION OF Pi AND P«. 

About 450, Aramaic history of the building of the Temple and the walls. 
About 444, Proclamation of the priestly legislation, Pi-j-P2. 
After 444, Ezra's Memoirs. 
After 432, Nehemiah's Memoirs. 

About 400, Essentially completion of the Hexateuch by Rp. 
Revision and excerpting of the Memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah by the author 
of Ezra x and Neh. viii, 1-ix, 5. 

IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 

Final redaction of the historical books, Gen. xiv. Px in the Hexateuch, Rp. 

in Judges and Samuel. 
Joel, probably after 400. 
The canonical Obadiah, according to Hitzig in 312. 

p \ > Probably from the Greek period. 

The bulk of the Psalms from the time of the second Temple, and older than 

Chronicles. 
Song of Songs (?). 

THE GREEK PERIOD. 

About 330, Isa. xxiv-xxvii. 

About 300, The Chronicler; also, the author of the Ezra-Nehemiah book in 

its present form. 
About 280, Zech. ix-xiv. 

About275, Translations of the Pentateuch into Greek; beginning of the LXX. 
Before 250, Secondary and reproducing prophetic writings: 

Isa. ii, 2-4; iv, 5,6; xi, 10-xii, 6; xxxii, 1-8, 9-xxxiii, 24. 

Jer. iii, 17, 18; v, 20-22; x, 1-16; xv, 11-14; xvii, 19-27; xxv, 30-38; 
xxxi, 35-37; xxxii, 17-23; xxxiii, 2, 3; 1, i-li, 58. 

Hos. i, 7; ii, 1-3; iii, 5; iv, 15a. 

Amos ii, 4, 5; iv, 13; v, 8, 9; ix, 5, 6. 



XXVI THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Micah iv, 1-4, 11-14; v, 1-3, 6-14, and ii, 12, 13; iv, 5-10; v, 4, 5; vii, 7-20. 

Hab. ii, 9-20; 3 (?). 

Zeph. iii, 14-20, and portions in chaps, ii and iii. 
About 250, Completion of the prophetic canon. 
Job, under all circumstances later than Proverbs. 
204, Ecclesiastes, according to Hitzig. 
The latest retouching of the historical and prophetic books on the basis of 

the Septuagint. 

THE MACCABEAN PERIOD. 

Psa. xliv; lxxiv; lxxix; and lxxxiii certainly. 

January, 164, Daniel. 

About 130, Esther. 

About 100, Actual close of the Old Testament canon. 



So much for " the literary results of advanced research in a 
nutshell." 

It would be useless to criticise this re-arrangement of the He- 
brew Scriptures, or to show that it was arbitrary, illogical, or 
erroneous, if we were able to do so ; for the moment this was done 
another host of critics would start up with the reply that they had 
never endorsed any such arrangement as that, but had reached 
other conclusions widely different and equally reliable ; and thus 
we should find ourselves in a maze of confused and contradictory 
theories, from which the Higher Criticism would afford us no way 
of escape. 

With all the variations among the Higher Critics, the general 
sentiment is, that most, if not all, of the books of the Old Testa- 
ment were written no one knows just when, where, or by whom ; 
the only certain thing about their authorship being, that they were 
not written by the persons whose names they bear, nor at the times 
when they purport to have been written. Who their authors were 
their critics do not undertake to tell, nor do they produce the 
slightest evidence, historical or traditional, concerning their author- 
ship. But we are invited to believe on their testimony as Higher 
Critics, that these writings, which have been guarded from genera- 
tion to generation, and transmitted for many centuries by the Jew- 
ish nation, the Samaritans, and the Christian church ; which have 
been the rallying center around which the scattered host of Israel 
have maintained their existence, in spite of all the persecutions and 
afflictions of ages ; which have been the flaming pillar and the 
guiding cloud of the most progressive nations and races on the 
earth ; and have thrilled and comforted the hearts of devout men 
for centuries and millenniums past ; are really the production of 
certain anonymous, patriotic, and priestly scribblers, who forged 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXV11 

laws in the name of Moses, and prophecies in the name of the Most 
High God ; who not only failed to sign their own names to 
things which they had written, but affixed to them the names of 
other famous men of preceding ages, — though why they selected 
those men, who had written nothing, and done nothing down to that 
time, to secure fame, and whose fame now rests, not upon anything 
they ever wrote or did, but upon the spurious acts and records 
which were forged and invented at that time, — is more than we can 
easily understand. 

One thing is noteworthy ; that is the persistent effort to bring 
down the date of these documents to modern times. In no single 
instance so far as known, is the age of a book declared by these 
critics to be greater than has been popularly supposed — invariably 
the date is brought down to more modern times. 

What is the meaning of these persistent efforts to lower the 
date of all the ancient Hebrew writings 1 Why are these men so 
anxious to prove that all these books were written at dates so much 
more recent than has been ordinarily supposed % Why was it that 
Porphyry, the heathen philosopher, argued for the late origin of 
the book of Daniel ? Why have skeptical writers been so anxious 
to prove that the art of writing was unknown in the time of Moses ? 
Why have modern skeptics and rationalists devoted their energies 
to bringing down the date of these books ? Are they trying to 

PROVE THAT ALL PROPHECY IS A FABLE ? 

The religion of the Bible depends largely for its authority upon 
sacred prophecy. In this respect it differs from all other religions. 
The Old Testament constantly asserts the power of the Hebrew 
prophets to foretell future events : and this claim was not made 
in the interest of jugglers and fortune-tellers, who by occult arts 
professed to read and guess the future, but it was declared by 
men who claimed to be the servants and messengers of One who 
had supreme authority over human affairs ; who ruled among the 
kingdoms of men ; who had not only the wisdom to declare what 
should come to pass, but who had the might to bring to pass that 
which He had purposed ; who declared that He worked all things 
according to the counsel of His own will, saying, " My counsel 
shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure ; " who declared "the end 
from the beginning, and from ancient times the things which are 
not yet done," and who was supreme among the armies of heaven 
and the people on the earth. And the prophet challenges the gods 
and prophets of heathen nations to submit to this one test, to dem- 
onstrate before the eyes of the world that they had such power of 



XXV111 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

foresight as Jehovah possessed. Thus he says : " Produce your cause, 
saith the Lord ; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of 
Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: 
let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may con- 
sider them, and know the latter end of them ; or declare us things 
for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may 
know that ye are gods : yea, do good or do evil, that we may be dis- 
mayed, and behold it together." Isa. xli. 21-23. "Behold the 
former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare ; before 

THEY SPRING FORTH I TELL YOU OF THEM." Isa. xlii. 9. "Bring 

forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. 
Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be 
assembled : who among them can declare this, and shew us former 
things? Let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be 
justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my wit- 
nesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen : that 
ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am He : before 
me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, 
even I, am the Lord ; and beside me there is no saviour." Isa. 
xliii. 8-11. "The great God hath made known to the king what 
shall come to pass hereafter." Daniel ii. 45. 

The whole story of the New Testament, and the proof of the 
Messiahship of Jesus of Xazareth, revolves around the expressions : 
"Thus it is written," and, " That it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken by the prophets." The Saviour in the concluding days of 
His ministry rebuked His disciples as being " slow of heart to believe 
all that the prophets have spoken ; " and the apostles, in proving the 
Messiahship of the son of Mary, reasoned out of the prophets, and 
the Scriptures, saying none other things but those which Moses 
and the prophets did say should come to pass. Christianity 
therefore stands or falls with the truth of sacred prophecy, and 
the apostle solemnly enjoins uponus to "despise not prophesyings." 

But prophecy in recent years has become greatly despised. The 
prophetic scriptures have been overlooked, and neglected, and the 
importance of prophecy has been belittled. A church goer from 
childhood to manhood declared to the writer that in all his life he 
had never heard a sermon on prophecy, and he was consequently a 
skeptic, though a member of the church. This neglect of scripture 
prophecy has been a virtual abandonment of one of the strongest 
lines of defense for the Christian faith. Persons have belittled its 
importance, and neglected it, and then the enemies of the gospel, 
quick to see their advantage, have endeavored to invalidate all 
argument from this source. Hence Porphyry asserted that the 

28 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXIX 

prophecy of Daniel was written after the events predicted had 
transpired. The wish was father to the thought ; and the recent 
drift of criticism, constantly laboring to bring down the date of these 
ancient writings, is believed to be not entirely in the interest of pure 
criticism, but rather to show that prophec}- is a fable, and thus 
undermine this foundation on which rests the doctrine of the 
Messiahship of Jesus, and the truth of the gospel of Christ. 

Of course an argument thus constructed would be entirely incon- 
clusive to any well instructed student of the scriptures, for if we 
are to admit the latest date that is claimed by the wildest of modern 
critics for the origin of both the Old and New Testament writings, 
we should still have prophecy fulfilling around us. The predictions 
of .Christ that His words should not pass away ; that His gospel 
should be proclaimed in all lands ; that Jerusalem should be trodden 
under foot of the Gentiles ; that the Jews should be scattered 
among all nations ; the predictions of Moses concerning the calam- 
ities that should overtake the Israelites if they disobeyed God ; the 
prediction of Hosea that the children of Israel should abide many 
days without a king, without an altar and without a sacrifice ; the 
predictions of Daniel concerning the Roman empire ; after throwing 
out entirely all those passages which refer to events prior to the 
latest asserted date of the writings of Daniel ; the predictions of 
the ruin of Babylon, the overthrow of Tyre, the desolations of Petra, 
and the degradation of Egypt, all of which were existing and flour- 
ishing long after every page of both Old and New Testament was 
written, still furnish us evidence of omniscient foresight and divine 
power, presiding over the destinies of nations, controlling the events 
of human history, and foretelling things that should come to pass 
hereafter ; so that if we move the origin of the Scripture writings 
down to the latest possible date, we still have prophecies which 
are now being circumstantially accomplished, to which we can point 
and say, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." 

The Higher Critics despise and discredit prophecy by asserting 
that the men who claimed to be the messengers of God were really 
pretenders, forgers of fables, and writers of fictitious books ; and 
hence they make constant efforts to bring down the dates of the 
books of the prophets and sacred writers to a period subsequent to 
the events to which they referred, thus endeavoring to prove that 
prophecy is a fable ; that no man has ever been inspired of God to 
foretell future events; whence it follows that Christianity is a 
fraud, and Jesus of Nazareth was not the promised Messiah, the 
Son of God, the Saviour of the world, and that no prediction for 
the future can be accepted or depended upon. 



XXX THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Doubtless persons enamored of the Higher Criticism will disavow 
all this, and deny that they admit any such conclusions. We are 
not concerned with their conclusions, which may be as illogical as 
their assumptions or their arguments; but they may be sure that 
others, accepting their arguments, will reach these logical conclusions, 
and renounce all faith in divine revelation, and in Christ the Sav- 
iour of sinners. Hence it becomes important at the outset to care- 
fully examine the underlying principles which govern the action of 
these Critics, and to closely scrutinize their claims and pretensions. 

The assaults on Christianity at the present day are not open and 
above-board, they are covered and insidious. The process of sap- 
ping and mining is going on. We are told that such an argument 
must be abandoned, but then we do not need it ; that another 
position must be given up, but there are others that are so much 
stronger that it makes no difference. We are informed that " all 
the learned believe " this, and that " all the critics believe " that, and 
only a few belated, old time bigots maintain the " traditional view." 

And yet there are men who had given thought and study to these 
questions before most of these Higher Critics were born, and who 
examined these difficulties when some of these learned gentlemen 
were in their swaddling clothes, and they are not at all certain that 
wisdom is likely to die with a lot of German Doctors who, over 
their pipes and beer, discuss and everlastingly settle these questions 
beyond the possibility of doubt or appeal, and make their conclu- 
sions the end of the law regarding this matter. 

There are certain sympathetic elements essential to the highest 
criticism, and some of these elements are not possessed by all 
critics who take upon themselves to handle the Scriptures of truth, 
and who have never yet learned that a solemn reverence befits 
men who deal with those words that shall judge them at the last 
day. " To this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a 
contrite spirit, and trembleth at My Word." But there is another 
man of a very different class who is thus described : " He that kill- 
eth an ox, is as if he slew a man ; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he 
cut off a dog's neck ; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered 
swine's blood ; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol." 
Such men have little in common with the servants of God. " They 
have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their 
abominations. I also will choose their delusions, and will bring 
their fears upon them." Isa. lxvi. 2-4. 

The musical critic must understand music ; the art critic must 
know something of art ; and he who criticises the Hebrew Scriptures 
should possess that Spirit by which their authors were moved to speak. 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXXI 

We are pleased to hear that many of the Higher Critics are 
men of blameless life and reverent spirit. We are thankful for 
the assurance. We shall be glad to know that they are able to 
stop when half way down Niagara; and that with them sentiment 
and education may be stronger than logic. But we are concerned 
not with the influence of certain opinions upon men who propagate 
them, but rather with their effect upon people who hear them and are 
misled by them. There are no doubt scholarly Gallios who hold 
their opinions so loosely and so calmly that they can think or say 
what they like, and yet maintain the reputable behavior in which 
they were trained by pious parents in years gone by ; but there are 
others who have had no such training or culture, and it is important 
to know what their conclusions will be when they have learned that 
prophecy is "a cunningly devised fable," inspiration a vain pre- 
tense, and that the Scriptures are not merely the unreliable state- 
ments of erring, fallible men, but the deliberate inventions, false- 
hoods, and pious frauds of men who it would seem have regarded 
lying as a virtue, and forgery and deception as marks of special 
grace. 

Possibly some persons interested in these critical studies may 
yet have to face other deeper and more serious questions than those 
which at present engage them. We are at present hearing what 
some of them say about the Bible ; it is possible that we may hear 
later what the Bible says about them. They have freely told what 
they thought of the God of the Bible ; and there may yet be an 
opportunity to know what the God of the Bible thinks of them. 
They have given us their opinion concerning the person and teach- 
ings of Jesus of Nazareth ; perhaps, to change the subject, we may 
yet ascertain His opinion concerning them. It may not be difficult 
to learn it, for we have some records which might aid us in our 
investigations. 

There was once a man who had the privilege of personal conver- 
sation with this Teacher concerning whose character men have dis- 
puted so much. He was a man who could read Hebrew without 
consulting lexicons or grammars ; he knew it as our Higher Critics 
know their mother tongues. He lived nearly two thousand years 
nearer the times of the prophets than we do, he had access to older 
and more correct manuscripts of the Scriptures than we now have. 
He was familiar with Jewish traditions ; and the public records and 
genealogies were open before him. He was skilled in Jewish law, 
so that with a single question he could sometimes break up the 
sitting of a whole Sanhedrim. He lived nearer the time when our 
Higher Critics tell us the canon of Scripture was closed, than we 



XXX11 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

do to the time of Christopher Columbus, or the Pilgrim fathers. 
He had opportunities for observation, and the privilege of personal 
acquaintance with many facts which are only transmitted to us 
through successive generations ; and as the result of his observations 
and investigations, in the face of all the doubts, and questions, and 
cavilings of the learned and the captious of his time, he expressed 
his personal conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was " a teacher come 
from God," because no man could do the miracles which he wrought 
unless God was with him. But to this man, influential, prominent, 
learned, candid, and truthful, the Teacher of Nazareth said, " Ver- 
ily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot 
see the kingdom of God." " Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye 
must be born again." The wise man did not understand how these 
tilings could be, — it is doubtful if he understood entirely how he 
was born at first, — but his failure to understand did not at all inval- 
idate the testimony of the Teacher, whose solemn words declared 
and enforced the necessity of a new birth, the beginning of a new 
life. It was not a question of the theories or opinions of Nicodemus, 
the Saviour found no fault with them ; but there must be the begin- 
ning of a new life within the soul: he must be born of God. 

Judging from the spirit, temper, and methods of some of the 
teachers and critics of the present day, a personal interview with the 
Saviour might bring to their knowledge the fact that they needed 
something more than correct opinions and Scriptural views, namely, 
to be " born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by 
the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever." " That which 
is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is 
spirit." There are now as in ancient times, men who are " soulual, 
having not a spirit." Jude, 19. There are natural men who dis- 
cern not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness with 
them ; but there are also spiritual men who discern all things, 
and yet whose inward life is a mystery to those who have never 
known it. 1. Cor. ii. 14-15. The Christ of God was rejected 
and condemned by men who knew Hebrew from their infancy , 
while unlearned and ignorant men accepted the salvation that Jesus 
Christ proclaimed ; and it may still prove to be the case that there 
are deeper secrets than those that are mastered by the critics of 
our time, and that of some important matters it may be said to-day, 
as of old, " Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, 
and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Eather : for so it 
seemed good in thy sight." Matt. xi. 25, 26. 

We calmly await the results of honest investigation. Perhaps 
the Higher Criticism may yet get down so low that the common 

32 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXX111 

peopie can examine it, and see what it is like. If certain books 
in the Bible are to go, there is this consolation, we shall have more 
left than most people heed. Perhaps if half the Bible is flung 
away, people will find time to study the other half. If the critics 
will leave us a little, say a Gospel, an epistle or two, and a few 
Psalms, it will be as much as many people read, and far more than 
they practice. Perhaps when our critical Sibyls have burned up 
two or three installments of the Book, the common people may 
learn the value of what remains. We hope the matter will be 
settled somehow soon. For several thousand years some thou- 
sands or millions of critics, more or less, have been working away 
at the Bible. Criticism is not peculiar to any age or land ; it is not 
confined to Germany or to America. Even in the Garden of Eden 
there was a critic ready to say, " Hath God said, Ye shall not eat 
of every tree of the garden? " Gen. iii. 1. Jannes and Jambres, 
the wise men of Egypt in the days of Moses, were quite at home 
in that department of Higher Criticism which eliminates the super- 
natural and denies the miraculous ; and they met with considerable 
temporary success, though their serpents were finally swallowed; 
their theories led those who accepted them into water beyond 
their depth ; and their folly was made manifest, as that of others 
may yet be. Jehoiakim, with his penknife, was as free a critic as 
can easily be found at the present day ; but after he had cut the 
prophecy of Jeremiah in pieces and flung it in the fire, it came 
back to him improved and amplified, and was eventually fulfilled. 
Jer. xxxvi. 23-32. Zedekiah was an acute critic ; for while one 
prophet declared that he should go to Babylon and die there, and 
another informed him that he should not see Babylon, he, in the 
exercise of the critical faculty, concluded that since the prophets 
disagreed with each other, it was safe to disbelieve them both. 
But when Zedekiah was captured, his sons slain before his face, 
his eyes put out, and he taken to Babylon to die there, he learned 
that a man might go to Babylon and yet never see Babylon.* 

Celsus the philosopher showed that Christianity was an absurd- 
ity, and his quotations from the New Testament stand now to con- 
found the skeptics who deny the early origin of those books. 
Porphyry asserted that the prophecy of Daniel was a forgery, 
written after the events had occurred; but Porphyry is dead and 
buried, and the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies is still going on. 
Diocletian, in 303, commanded to tear down the churches and 



* Jeremiah xxxii. 4, 5; Ezekiel xii. 13, Josephus Antiq. Book x. chap. 
Yii. § 2; chap. viii. § 2. 



XXXIV THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

burn up the Scriptures ; and struck a medal with the legend 
" Christianity is Destroyed ; " but two years later he quit the emperor 
business, and went to raising cabbages. Julian, the apostate, as- 
sailed the new religion, and perished on the battlefield and sunk 
into oblivion. And from that time down there has been a suc- 
cession of kings, princes, rulers, and ecclesiastics who have been 
working away to demolish the Bible, or restrict its circulation, and 
keep it from the people, till we come down to Voltaire, and Paine, 
and the smaller fry of critics who repeat their borrowed arguments. 

The Christian Register for June, 1891, a paper fully alive to the 
merits, and quite in harmony with the methods and conclusions of 
the Higher Critics, says : " Thomas Paine, though stigmatized and 
set aside as an infidel, finds reincarnation in the modern Biblical 
critic. Paine pointed out the contradictions in the Bible, which 
rendered impossible the claim that it is an infallible book He 
lived too far in advance of his age. The spirit of modern scientific 
criticism had not yet come. . . . And now it is interesting to find 
that with a different spirit, and with different tools, and bound by 
certain traditions from which Paine was free, the professors in our 
orthodox seminaries are doing again the work which Paine did, and like 
him in the interests of honesty and truth." 

So the work goes on, and the woods are full of skeptics and crit- 
ics with their wonderments about Noah's Ark, and Moses' coney, 
and Jonah's fish, and Abraham's burying ground, and heaven 
knows what else; and it now looks as if the job was likely to be 
finished once for all. 

Well, we shall feel relieved when it is over, and we hope they 
will be quick about it. We want the matter settled somehow. If 
it is necessary to appoint a receiver for the old concern, let it be 
done, and let it go into liquidation and see what is left; only we 
hope that these great and learned men, who are hired and paid to 
tell people how much of the Bible they may believe, will make a 
clean job of it, finish it up once for all, and let us know just where 
we are. We want to get our assets into shape, so that we may 
know exactly how we stand. Will they leave us John iii. 16? or 
Matthew xi. 28? or Luke xv.? or Psalm xxiii.? or John xiv.? or 
1 Cor. xv.? or Rev. xxi. and xxii.? What we want to know is, just 
what we can depend on, and just how we are coming out. 

And then if we find ourselves short of Bible, we want to know 
on whom we shall draw to meet the deficiency. Shall we go to 
Confucius, or Buddha, or Plato, or Pythagoras? to Zoroaster, to 
Mohammed, or Joseph Smith? to the Rig Veda, or the Book of 
Mormon? to the Age of Reason, or the Light of Asia? Shall we 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. XXXV 

consult the 0,000 volumes of the Chinese Cyclopedia, with its 
eighteen volumes of index ; or shall we examine the 225 volumes 
of the Jangyn, the pocket cyclopedia of Thibetan Buddhism? Of 
course we must not be left without something, and we wish to 
know definitely " To whom ive shall go" to find "the words of 
eternal life? " We are tired of being unsettled, and if our learned 
critics will put their heads together and decide this whole business, 
once for all, we shall be relieved and feel thankful. 

But they must not ask us to depend on authority when we drop 
the Bible. We cannot make a fetish of the new books of the 
Higher Critics. They must give us evidence, and demonstration, 
and must bring this evidence down where the common people can 
read and understand it ; and if they will kindly agree among them- 
selves, so that when one of them has settled everything no one 
else will come along next day and upset the whole, we shall be 
truly thankful. Especially would we be glad to have them tell us 
what they believe, and ivhy they believe it. " Tell me what you 
believe, I have doubts enough of my own;" is a saying attributed 
to Goethe. These gentlemen have spent time enough telling us 
what they do not believe ; now will they inform us what they do 
believe, and also why they believe if? They have showed us how to 
cut our cable : will they now tell us how to come to anchor, and 
where we are to find an anchorage ground? 

Truth courts investigation. Candid men are not afraid to con- 
sider difficulties which occur in the Hebrew Scriptures ; but when 
such difficulties are invented or exaggerated, they indicate the erran- 
cy of the critic rather than that of the Book he criticises. Intelli- 
gent, careful, honest criticism is legitimate and welcome ; but carp- 
ing skepticism is not legitimate criticism. 

The phrase 'Higher Critic' is as indefinite as the term 'reptile/ 
which may be either a crocodile, a mud-turtle, a lizard, or a striped 
snake ; or the word 'animal,' which may be a mouse, a mammoth, 
a pussy cat, or a Bengal tiger. So there are critics and critics, of 
every variety, from the mildest grade of perplexed doubters to the 
most out-spoken type of skeptics and unbelievers. Names and brands 
signify little now ; — every parcel must be examined. Doubtless 
some of the Higher Critics are men of devout spirit and true faith, 
but they are in questionable company, and are, sowing seed which 
may produce an unlooked for harvest. They must not complain 
if men scrutinize or suspect them. Plain people are anxious to 
know just what the critics of the day are, and what they are doing. 
Are they Christians or infidels? Are they trying to pilot the old 
ship into port, or wreck it on the sand bars? Christians are quite 



XXXVI THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

willing that critics should scrape off barnacles, but they are not 
ready to have them scuttle the ship : and it seems to be time for 
those in whom faith is not utterly dead, to watch the course of 
events, and stand for the defense of truths which are rashly assailed. 

A survey of the various destructive, discordant, and self-contra- 
dictory theories of some of the Higher Critics, affords a degree of jus- 
tification for :he following words from a well known English paper : 

" What is called the criticism of the Old Testament consists of a 
series of idle conjectures concerning the dates and the authorship 
of the books and of the various parts of them. The reason why 
these conjectures are put forth is this : That the ' critics ' are infi- 
dels who want to overthrow religion by casting doubts on the Bible. 
Their efforts are concentrated on discrediting anything in the Bible 
which implies miracle or the supernatural. When future events 
are foretold, they say that the prophecy is a fraud, having been 
written after its alleged fulfillment. When God's miraculous deal- 
ings with man are narrated, the ' critics' set to work to show that 
the story is an embellished version of some purely natural occur- 
rence. When the author declares that he himself was an eye-wit- 
ness of the marvels he relates, the ' critics ' say the work is a late 
forgery. Afterwards, when their guess-work has been proved base- 
less and their arguments torn to tatters, the ' critics ' publish new 
books carefully ignoring all that has been urged against the old 
ones, and simply reaffirming dogmatically their former conclusions. 
Then certain weak-kneed Christians, deeply impressed M r ith the 
audaciously positive assertions of the destructive school, hasten to 
accept them as the undoubted 'results of criticism.' They fly to 
church congress to 'warn' their brethren against the danger of dis- 
puting these ' results.' They wildly attempt the impossible task of 
' serving two masters.' They imagine they can still remain Chris- 
tians and still profess a reverence for the Bible as a whole, while 
accepting in detail the destructive theories of the rationalist school." 

We must act prudently where such mighty issues are involved, 
and fasten slowly while doctors disagree so radically ; calmly wait- 
ing until scores of critical theories have run their course, and their 
authors and their imitators are forgotten. We will read the Bible 
until something better comes. We will welcome all legitimate 
criticism, which brings light instead of darkness. We will scruti- 
nize every book and every page. We will prove all things, and 
hold fast that which is good ; and in so doing we believe that we 
shall still be found " holding fast the faithful Word," that we "may 
rejoice in the day of Christ" that we have "not run in vain, neither 
labored in vain." Titus i. 9 ; Phil. ii. 16. 



JESUS OE NAZARETH AS 
A HIGHER CRITIC. 



JESUS OF NAZARETH 

AS 

A HIGHER CRITIC 



BY H. L. HASTINGS. 



It is probable that there is not a single fact stated in the entire 
Bible that is not questioned, controverted, or contradicted by some 
critic or skeptic. It is therefore necessary to examine, investigate, 
and settle every point. Nothing must be assumed, nothing taken 
for granted, and every claim of Christ or Christianity must be dis- 
regarded, until the entire status of the case is settled on the basis 
of exact scientific criticism. There are many who would settle crit- 
ical questions by reference to the authority of Jesus of Nazareth ; 
but the system of Higher Criticism goes to the roots of things, and 
declines to rest its conclusions upon the authority of any one. Of 
course a disciple of Christ might accept the testimony of Jesus of 
Nazareth, and ask no further evidence, but all men are not disciples 
of Christ, and with them " the testimony of Jesus," which is " the 
spirit of prophecy," has no weight. 

There are men who may be described as " the contrary minded," 
who deny that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. These, however, 
are not Higher Critics ; their conclusions make so clean a sweep 
that there is nothing left to criticise ; but with the Higher Critics in 
general, Jesus of Nazareth was a historic personage, and as such 
may be subjected to critical consideration. Some who accept Him 
as the Saviour of the world, yet believe that He was subject to 
" human limitations " that should qualify our estimate of the valid- 
ity of His utterances concerning such matters as the authorship 
and authority of the Scriptures. 

It is useless to find fault with these positions ; this condition of 
things confronts us, we must therefore meet it ; and if we are to 
come to any understanding with doubters and unbelievers, we must 

(xl) 40 



Xli THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

put ourselves in their place, and consider Jesus of Nazareth, not as 
a divine being, but as a human being ; not as God manifest in the 
flesh, but as the man Christ Jesus : not even as a prophet, but as 
one of many Jewish teachers who from time to time arose among 
the people. 

Let us therefore consider Jesus of Nazareth in His human aspect, 
and with all the limitations which pertain to human life. And 
First : fie was a Jew, of the tribe of Judah, of the stock of Abra- 
ham. He was not a Jew in exile or captivity, exposed to Gentile 
influences and foreign culture, but He was born and bred a Jew in 
the land of Israel, and surrounded by Jewish associations, influ- 
ences, and family affiliations. Second : He was under the care of 
those who were bound by Jewish law to diligently teach Him its 
precepts. It is probable that the very first devotional poem which 
He ever read or learned testified of the happiness or blessedness of 
the man "whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law 
doth he meditate day and night." Third : His knowledge of the 
Hebrew and Syriac tongue was not acquired under the weekly 
lessons of a Gentile professor during a three years' course in a theo- 
logical seminary. He had been brought up where these tongues 
were the language of common life, and had learned them from his 
mother's lips. He was not in a land of uncultured barbarians : there 
were schools and books around Him. Foreign languages were also 
spoken, so that in the metropolis it was deemed necessary by the 
authorities to inform the passers by of the crime of an executed 
malefactor by inscriptions in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. 

Fourth : His knowledge of Jewish antiquities was not derived 
from books or libraries, but from personal acquaintance and invest- 
igation. His acquaintance with Jerusalem and Judea and the land 
of Israel, was acquired, not in a trip of two or three weeks, with a 
dragoman to ask his questions, a Turk to answer them, and a com- 
pany of soldiers to keep him from being knoeked in the head and 
robbed by wandering Bedawin ; but he had probably made a hun- 
dred journeys to and from the Sacred City. Three times a year 
from the age of twelve till he began to be about thirty years old, 
he had gone up to appear in Zion before the Lord, and there had 
mingled with his countrymen who gathered from Dan to Beersheba. 
Herod's magnificent temple was standing, and there, on his first 
visit to Jerusalem, he had found his way in among the doctors, 
listening to them and asking them questions ; and we may easily 
believe that in his later visits he improved similar opportunities. 
From time to time he also visited other portions of the land of 
Israel, traversing the hills and valleys, climbing the mountains, 

41 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. xlii 

skirting the shores and the borders of Gennesaret ; mingling in the 
hum and tumult of the crowded city, and again turning aside into 
the desert to rest ; traversing Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and thus 
becoming acquainted with rabbies, teachers, scribes, and lawyers : 
venerable men who had devoted their lives to the study of their 
ancient records, and who were familiar with law, and learned in 
Hebrew lore. 

Fifth : He had no occasion to hunt through lexicons, concordan- 
ces, and grammars to master the mysteries of Hebrew lexicography, 
the subtilties of Hebrew grammar, or the idiomatic structure of the 
sacred tongue. There were men all around him who were experts 
in all these departments. There were priests and learned men who 
had read and spoken Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldee all their days, 
and who were capable of pronouncing a critical judgment upon the 
style, idioms, archaisms, and peculiarities of any Hebrew document. 
They were men of deep research, patient application, subtile intel- 
lect, and great national pride. Every one of them by the aid of 
those " endless genealogies " which were kept on record, could trace 
his lineage back to the " father of the faithful." As priests, their 
position depended upon keeping the rt cords of this lineage, and as 
citizens of the land their citizenship and the possession of their 
estates rested upon their ability to trace their lineal descent from 
those Hebrews who had entered the promised land. They had a 
considerable literature, and an abundance of traditions, both written 
and oral. They were as near the times of David and Solomon as 
we are to Alfred the Great. They were as near the times of Nebu- 
chadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity, as the Englishman of to- 
day is to the times of William the Conqueror. They were as near 
the times of Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah as we are to the times of 
John Huss, Jerome of Prague, and Martin Luther. They were 
nearer the times assigned by the Higher Critics to the authors of 
much of the Old Testament, than we are to the times of Shake- 
speare and Milton, John Bunyan and Jeremy Taylor. They were in 
a little territory about as large as the State of Massachusetts, 
where for more than fourteen hundred years they and their fathers 
had lived continuously, with the exception of the brief period of 
the Babylonish captivity. Every hill and every valley of that 
region was historic. They needed no " Biblical Researches " to 
inform them concerning the localities and facts mentioned in Jew- 
ish history. Uncontradicted history and uninterrupted tradition 
had brought down the memories of the stirring events of past ages. 
They were as familiar with the mountains, the valleys, the monu- 
ments, and the battle fields of their native land as we are with 

42 



Xliii THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

similar localities made memorable to us by events of by-gone years. 

They did not know everything about the outside world, and did 
not explore distant lands while ignorant of their own. The world 
was smaller then than now ; the telegraph did not bring its daily 
deluge of the gossip and garbage of the world to their tables. No 
printing-presses were tumbling out tons of ill-digested reading mat- 
ter, and unreliable and sensational intelligence. No vast public 
libraries existed, out of which seventy-five per cent of the books 
taken were fiction; but they had their histories and their traditions, 
their proverbs and their songs, their laws and their parables ; they 
had the genealogies of their families and the public records of the 
leading events of their time. 

Trained under such circumstances and such influences, Jesus of 
Nazareth had great opportunities for familiarizing himself with the 
Semetic languages and literature. He was familiar with the Syriac 
tongue, the language of common life. He spoke it by the wayside, 
in the house, in common conversation, in secret prayer, in his dying 
agonies upon the cross.* He had undoubtedly read Hebrew at an 
age when most of the Higher Critics did not know the first letter of 
the Hebrew alphabet. He could stand up before a public assembly 
of Jews and read a Hebrew manuscript at sight, and pronounce his 
words correctly. How many Higher Critics could do that to-day? 
He had access to Hebrew manuscripts in all the synagogues in Pal- 
estine, besides copies in private hands, and every one of those man- 
uscripts was hundreds of years more ancient than any Hebrew manu- 
script which any Higher Critic ever saw or ever will see. His discourses 
clearly indicate that he had diligently read those books, and was 
familiar with their contents. There are probably not more than a 
dozen Higher Critics on earth who would set themselves above Him 
in native abilities, mental grasp, and intellectual acuteness. He 
could sing, and preach, and pray in Hebrew as well as ordinary 
critics can in English or in German ; and in all his references to 
the Hebrew Scriptures we do not recall a palpable error or a blun- 
der ; and upon purely literary grounds his position as a critic must 
be infinitely higher than that of any man on earth to-day. He was 
nearer the days of Ezekiel and Daniel than we are to the times of 
Wycliffe, our oldest translator of the Bible. He was nearer the time 
of the origin of large portions of the Scriptures, according to the 
Higher Critics, than we are to the Pilgrim Fathers, and about as 



*For numerous instances of our Saviour's use of the Syriac language, see 
the writer's Historical Introduction to Dr. Murdock's Translation of the 
Peshitto Syriac New Testament, p. xxxi. Scriptural Tract Repository, 
Boston, Mass., 1893. 

43 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM* xllV 

near to what they call the " actual close of the Old Testament canon " 
as we are to the Revolutionary War, and the battle of Bunker Hill. 

It therefore follows, that upon purely literary grounds, Jesus of 
Nazareth, considered only as a Jewish teacher and critic, must 
stand infinitely higher than any man who lives on earth to-day. If the 
original writings of Moses had been as old as any man ever sup- 
posed them to be, they would not have been much older than the 
Sinaitic manuscript which Tischendorf obtained in the monastjry 
of St. Catharine, and which is now in the Imperial Library at St. 
Petersburg. A parchment manuscript written by Adam or Noah 
might, with a single transcription, have been easily preserved to the 
time of Jesus of Nazareth. 

" The man Christ Jesus " was in a position to speak impartially 
concerning these matters. He was neither a Priest nor a Levite, 
and did not subsist upon the tithes and offerings of the people, and 
so had no pecuniary interests in the national religion. He was not 
a Scribe nor a Lawyer, nor was he a theological professor, bound 
by his position, his vows, or his salary to study the law and defend 
and proclaim it however he might doubt its authority. He was 
untrammelled by creeds, confessions, and sectarian bands. He was 
neither a Pharisee, a Sadducee, an Essene or a Herodian. He was 
of royal lineage, but he laid no claim to authority on that account. 
He was a plain, working man ; his hands ministered to his necessities. 
He was able and willing to earn his living, and could afford to tell 
the truth : nor was he subject to Jewish traditions, or entangled in 
the cobwebs of antiquity. He refuted and condemned the tradi- 
tions of the elders, by which the law of Moses was made void ; but 
he knew the Holy Scriptures. He lived in a land where these books 
were held sacred, guarded with sedulous care; deposited in the 
temple and places of worship, and publicly read in the synagogues 
every sabbath day. 

If therefore we may not cite the testimony of Jesus of Nazareth, 
the Messiah, the Son of God, perhaps we may ask the opinion of 
Jesus of Nazareth, the Higher Critic, who, from his acquaintance 
with Biblical antiquities, Hebrew idioms, and textual criticism, was 
in a position to give lessons to every Higher Critic now on the face of the 
earth : and whose personal independence, conscientious truthfulness, 
mental grasp, and intellectual acumen, give his words a weight not 
possessed by those of many of the critics of to-day. 

Now what does Jesus of Nazareth, as a man, as a teacher, and as 
a Higher Critic say concerning the Old Testament Scriptures 1 He 
quotes from Psalm lxxxii. 6, as " the lYord of God," and informs 
us that "the Scripture cannot be broken." He lived a hundred 

U 



Xlv THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

years nearer the time when the Higher Critics say the book of 
Daniel was forged, than we do to the time when the Pilgrims landed 
on Plymouth Rock ; and he could judge whether the prophecies 
contained in the hook of Daniel had been forged after their accom- 
plishment or fulfilled before they were written ; but he boldly men- 
tioned " Daniel the prophet," and pointed forward to the future 
fulfillment of predictions which at that time were not accomplished, 
saying, " When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation 
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, — whoso 
readeth let him understand — then let them which be in Judea flee 
into the mountains." Matt. xxiv. 15, 16. He spoke of " the law 
of Moses "and the miracles which Moses wrought. The uplifted 
serpent in the wilderness was the type of the uplifting of the Son 
of man. The manna which their fathers did eat was the type of 
the bread of God which He gave that men might live forever. 
The deliverance of Jonah from the belly of hell he presented as 
the type of his own resurrection. He bade his hearers, " Search the 
Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are 
they which testify of Me." He declared, " If they hear not Moses 
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose 
from the dead." Luke xvi. 31. He says, "Had ye believed Moses, 
ye would have believed Me : for he wrote of me. But if ye believe 
not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John v. 46. He 
recognized the three divisions which comprised the Jewish Scrip- 
tures, and declared that the things written in the Law of Moses, and 
in the Prophets, and in The Psalms, " must be fulfilled." Luke xxiv. 
44. He endorsed the scriptural account of the creation of man, 
" He which made them at the beginning, made them male and 
female." Matt. xix. 4-6. He accepted the Mosaic record of the 
first martyrdom, when he speaks of the " blood of righteous Abel." 
Matt, xxiii. 35. He endorsed the story of the deluge, and tells us 
that " as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coining of the Son 
of man be." Matt. xxiv. 37. He reminded his hearers of the over- 
throw of Sodom, and Gomorrah, exhorting them to " Remember 
Lot's wife." Luke xvii. 32. He declared, " Your fathers did eat 
manna in the wilderness." John vi. 49. He tells us that David 
" did eat the shewbread." 1 Sam. xxi. ;Matt. xii. 3-4. He cites the 
miracle of the shutting of heaven for three years and six months, 
in answer to Elijah's prayers, the feeding of the hunted prophet by 
the widow of Sarepta, and the cleansing of Naaman the leper in Jor- 
dan, in accordance with Elisha's directions. Luke iv. 25-27. In 
the synagogue at Nazareth he read from the book of the Prophet 
Isaiah, and said, " This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." 

45 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. xM 

Isa. lxi. 1.* Luke iv. 18-22, and his quotations from Isaiah and 
Psalms are too numerous to be mentioned. He quotes from Malaciii 
the last prophet, " Behold, I send my messenger before thy face " 
(Mai. iii. 1 ; Matt. xi. 10), and in the fulfillment of the predictions 
of the prophets he rested the proof of his own Messiahship.* 

Once he met the great Enemy of righteousness in a hand to hand 
conflict, and resisted and defeated him. He used as a weapon the 
Sword of the Spirit. He introduced four passages of Scripture, 
saying of each of them, " It is written." In that day of fiercest 
battle he thrust his adversary through and through with this 
"sharp, two-edged sword." And where did he find those passages? 
Every one of them was taken from the book of Deuteronomy. t If the 
Tempter in the wilderness could have got a few points from 
modern Higher Critics, he might have ended the conflict by inform- 
ing his opponent that Deuteronurny was a recent forgery bv an 
unknown writer in the time of Josiah, or later; but he was not equal 
to the occasion, and so Christ was victorious, and Satan departed 
from Mm, and angels ministered unto him. Does this fact explain 
why unbelievers seem to have such a special spite against thebook of 
Deuteronomy f Is this why so many pipe-smoking, beer-drinking 
critics when out of a job, are set at work on Deuteronomy? Well, 
thus far Deuteronomy seems to hold its own very well. 

As a mere human teacher and Higher Critic, Jesus of Nazareth 
must be accounted far superior to all the critics of modern times 
both in abilities, opportunities, and facilities ; and Jews and Gen- 
tiles, skeptics and critics, unite to describe him as a good, blameless 
and heroic man. Indeed one man declared that he "did no sin, 
neither was guile found in his mouth." "What then were 

THE CLAIMS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH? 

The claims of Jesus of Nazareth are not those of a mere human 
teacher. " I came forth from the Father, and am come into the 
world : again I leave the world and go to the Father." John xvi. 
28. " "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he 
was before ? " John vi. 62. " No man hath ascended up to heaven, 
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man." John 
iii. 13. " Glorify Thou me with thine own self, with the glory 
which I had with Thee before the world was." John xvii. 5. 

Such are some of the utterances which voice His claims ; but no 
such claims could be admitted without there were credentials. 

*For further particulars, consult the " Testimony of Christ to the Truth of 
the Old Testament," by Robert Patterson. Axti-Ix'fidel Library, No. L 
+Luke iv. 1-13. Deut. viii. 3, vi. 13, x. 20, vi. 16. 

46 



Xlvii THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

tokens, and proofs of His divine legation. This fact was well un- 
derstood among the Jewish people ; and hence they were continually 
seeking for signs. As the ancient prophets showed by visible and 
manifest tokens that they possessed peculiar power and authority, 
so these people were disposed to say, " What sign showest Thou, that 
we may believe 1 " and the Saviour himself declares, "The same 
works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." 
John v. 36. " The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear 
witness of me." Johnx. 25. " Believe me that I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me : or else believe me for the very works' sake." 
John xiv. 11. And the Apostle John, after having related many 
things which the Saviour did, declares, " Many other signs truly did 
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in 
this book : but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus 
is. the Christ, the Son of God ; and that, believing, ye might have 
life through his name." John xx. 30-31. The Saviour himself 
says, "If I had not done among' them the works which none other 
man did, they had not had sin." John xv. 24 ; and the Apostle 
Peter, standing up in the presence of the multitude, said, " Ye men 
of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of 
God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did 
by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being 
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye 
have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain : whom 
God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death : because it 
was not possible that He should be holden of it." Acts ii. 22-24. 

This was a plain, definite assertion of wonderful works done by 
divine power; and this assertion, made in the presence of the multi- 
tude at Jerusalem, was not only uncontradicted, but after it was 
made not less than three thousand persons believed the story of the 
death and resurrection of Christ; and that not in some far off and 
unknown region, but in the very city where not - two months before 
Jesus of Nazareth was scourged, and mocked, and spit upon, and 
buffeted, and crowned with thorns, and led away to be crucified. 

Not only did Jesus of Nazareth do great and wonderful works, 
but he uttered wonderful words. There is nothing more transient 
and evanescent than a word. There are millions of people who 
have lived and talked from childhood to old age, and no single 
word that they have uttered is remembered. There are multi- 
tudes of people speaking to-day, and everything they say is forgot- 
ten within a few moments after it is uttered. But this man said, 
" Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass 
away," and though he wrote no books, though none of his speeches 

47 



THE niGHER CRITICISM. xlviii 

appeared in the public journals, yet by some means his words have 
lived, and live to the present day. They live in the records of his 
disciples ; they live in the literature of the ages ; they live in the 
hearts of the people ; they live because the power of life is in them. 
What has given these words such wonderful vitality ? Let us hear 
Him speak on this subject, " The words that I speak unto you I 
speak not of myself . . . The word which ye hear is not mine, but 
the Father's which sent me." John xiv. 10, 24. Again he said, 
" He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that 
judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge 
him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself ; but the 
Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should 
say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment 
is life everlasting : whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the 
Father said unto me so I speak." John xii. 48-50. Again in that 
last prayer offered before he went out to suffer he said, " I have 
given unto them the words which Thou gavest me, and they have 
received them, and have known surely that I came out from Thee, 
and they have believed that Thou didst send me." John xvii. 8. 

It is true that some men see nothing but an exalted humanity in 
these words. But what other man has ever had the audacity to use 
them? It is related that one man conversing with a much lauded 
pundit, a sage of the Brahminical caste of Newenglandstan, who 
could not see the pre-eminent dignity of the Son of man, asked him ; 

" Could you say, ' I am the resurrection and the life ? ' " 

" Yes," said he, " I could say that." 

" But could you make any one believe it ? " was the next question ; 
and to that the answer was not forthcoming. But Jesus of Naza- 
reth has said these words, and has made men believe them I and his 
words live to-day, and will live till heaven and earth shall pass away. 

Now, many of the words which Jesus spoke, had reference to the 
writings of the ancient prophets. He himself read out of those 
Scriptures in the synagogue on the Sabbath day. He constantly 
referred to the Scriptures, and bade them search the Scriptures that 
they might know the truth. He said to his disciples, " O unwise, 
and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. . . . 
These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with 
you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law 
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 
Then opened he their understanding that they might understand the 
Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it be- 
hooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." 
Luke xxiv. 25, 44-46. He frequently quotes from the Scriptures. 

48 



Xlix THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

He said, " Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me : for 
he wrote of Me." John v. 46. When accused of making himself 
God, he answered, referring to Psalms lxxxii. 6, " Is it not written 
in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods unto 
whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken ; 
say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the 
world, Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am the Son of God? 
If I do not the works of My Father believe Me not, but if I do, 
though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know, 
and believe, that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." John x. 
34-38. Again he refers to another passage when proving the resur- 
rection of the dead, " Have ye not read that which was spoken 
unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God 
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? " Matt. xxii. 31, 32. 

The argument seems very plain : Christ came claiming to be a 
messenger of God ; he wrought signs and wonders and miracles ; 
he ruled the winds, he calmed the waves ; he controlled the fishes 
of the sea ; he healed the sick, he raised the dead ; he cast out 
devils ; he was avowed to be the " well beloved Son " of God by a 
voice from heaven. He himself declared that he had " done the 
works which none other man ever did," and thousands who saw the 
works and knew the facts believed on Him. And then he dis- 
tinctly claimed that his words that he spoke were given him of 
God, that they were a message from the eternal throne, and were to 
outlast the world, and to judge men at the last day ; and that the 
Jewish Scriptures which he and they read were "The Word of 
God," the words of life and salvation. Are these things so? 

We are to embrace the truth at whatever hazard, and are to fol- 
low it wherever it leads. But first we must know what is truth, and 
see whether that which is presented as truth is likely to lead us into a 
labyrinth of absurdities. Hence we have a right to examine a theory 
in all its bearings and consequences before accepting or rejecting it. 

An arc of a great circle may seem like a straight line. We may 
need to carry it around in its sweep to convince ourselves that every 
inch of it is crooked. Two lines may seem exactly parallel, but 
if we project them a million of miles they may show a vast diver- 
gence. So theories must be tested not only by the experiences of 
time but by the revelations of eternity. That which is not eternally 
true may not be true at all ; and if a theory leads us away from 
Him who is the Truth, we may well hesitate before we embrace it. 

Let us see what are the results of some of this critical teaching, 
as stated by Rev. Philip H. Wicksteed, in an article on Abraham 
Kuenen whose disciple and translator he was : 

49 



THE IIIGHElt CRITICISM. 1 

" The position which Kuenen took . . . involved the absolute sur- 
render of orthodox dogmatics, of the authority of the Scriptures, of 
the divine character of the church as an external institution ; and 
of course it based the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to our affection 
and gratitude solely upon what history could show that he, as a 
man, had been and had done for men." — Jewish Quarterly Review, 
July, 1892, p. 596. 

This witness is true, and has the courage of his convictions. He 
is logical, and follows his logic, until we have no prophecy, no mir- 
acles, no Bible, no Saviour. 

A theory is responsible for its consequences. Those who embrace 
it may not be responsible. They may be faulty in logic and incon- 
sistent in act. They may not look to the final results of their 
theorizing. They may be led blindly into the marshes and quag- 
mires of error and unbelief. We must not be so led. We must 
walk in the light, and understand the direction and the end of the 
path into which we enter. 

Of course facts will stand, whatever they may be. But we must 
know that we have the facts. There are false facts as well as false 
arguments ; false premises as well as false conclusions; errors at the 
root as well as errors in the branches; defects in foundations as 
well as. in superstructures ; and we are to examine everything, test 
everything, and investigate everything ; we are to " prove all 
things and hold fast that which is good." 

A settled principle with some of these Higher Critics, — if any of 
their principles can be said to be settled, — is, that inspired prophecy 
is an impossibility, that all claims to it are mere rhapsody, or fraud 
and trickery ; and that the authors of the prophetical writings, as 
well as the writers of the Pentateuch, were simply patriotic liars 
and romancing forgers, who strove to fire the hearts of their coun- 
trymen by spurious predictions, falsely attributed to men who never 
predicted such events, nor indeed any other events, — an instance 
apparently of issuing counterfeit notes on a bank whose genuine 
bills were worthless. 

Of course if it be settled that prophecy is impossible, that ends 
all controversy regarding its inspiration, and it also ends all faith 
in the writings of those apostles who reasoned out of the Scrip- 
tures, saying none other things than those which Moses and the 
prophets did say should come (Acts xxvi. 22), and proves that the 
Jews were perfectly justified in rejecting a Saviour, who had 
never been predicted, and whose coming was not a fulfillment of 
any recorded promise or purpose of the God of Abraham. 

Great differences of opinion exist regarding the estimate which 

50 



li THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

should be placed upon those writings known as the Holy Scriptures. 
There are those who believe that they are able to make men "wise 
unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus " and that by 
them " the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
all good works : " there are others who assert that " ' The Bible as 
we now have it, swarms with errors ; " and they naturally would 
give but a guarded and qualified endorsement to such a volume. 

FETISHISM AND BIBLIOLATRY. 

According to some of the wise and prudent Critics of the day, 
there is great danger that the Bible will be regarded as a sort of 
fetish, like those which are worshiped by the lowest idolaters, who 
tie bags of rags, snake skins, dried toads and other trumpery about 
them, and make them objects of adoration. And there seems to be 
a fear that the civilization and intellectual advancement of the age 
will be imperiled by people who look on the Holy Scriptures with 
superstitious regard as a fetish : and consequently when critics who 
have been emancipated from this form of fetish worship by find- 
ing out that the Bible is nothing but an ordinary book, full of 
errors, blunders, misstatements, fictions, falsehoods, and forgeries, 
they at once become enamored of its beauty, and prize it far more 
highly than they ever did when they regarded it as a fetish. 

There are some things which are peculiar to this special form of 
fetish worship. As an invariable rule other fetishes are only found 
among the most ignorant, degraded, barbarous, and brutal races on 
the face of the earth, who worship fetishes, capture slaves, eat 
human flesh, live by predatory warfare, practice every kind of bar- 
barism and impurity, and find nothing in fetish worship inconsistent 
with these practices and barbarities. This particular fetish, how- 
ever, seems to be most prized and regarded among the most intel- 
lectual, prosperous, humane, and progressive races on the face of 
the earth. Wherever you find the common school and universal 
education you find this fetish. Wherever you find a place of wor- 
ship, where instead of noise, ceremony, and dumb-show, the ser- 
vices appeal to intelligence, intellect, and chastened emotion, there 
you find this fetish. Wherever you find the bonds of the slave 
broken, and liberty proclaimed to the captive, you find this fetish. 
Wherever you find colleges and universities teaching art, science, 
literature, and pure morality, you find this fetish at the bottom of 
it all. Wherever you find female schools, academies, and semin- 
aries, there you find this fetish in the place of honor. Wherever 
you find one of near a hundred languages and dialects which had only 
existed for ages in speech and memory, at last reduced to writing, 

51 



The higher criticism. lii 

grammatically analyzed, and the foundations laid for its litera- 
ture, you find that the work has been done by a votary of this partic- 
ular fetish ; and the chief corner stone of the new literature which 
blesses these bookless multitudes, is this same fetish, from which 
they read in their own tongues wherein they were born, the story 
of the wonderful works of God. Wherever we find advancement 
and invention we find this fetish leading the way. If we travel by 
steamer or by railway it is only in lands where this fetish has in- 
fluence. If we use mowing machines, and reaping machines, and 
threshing machines, and sewing machines, we find them only among 
the people who are interested in this fetish. If we use the printing- 
press, the telegraph, or the telephone ; if we grind our corn in the 
most approved manner ; if we produce our clothes, and boots, and 
shoes, by spinning machines, power looms, stitching machines, and 
all the host of labor saving devices of the present day ; these with- 
out exception come from men who have been brought up under the 
influence of this fetish, and who have been taught to regard it of 
the utmost value. Wherever we find hospitals for the sick, asylums 
for the insane, orphanages for the fatherless, schools for the blind, 
soup kitchens for the poor, and homes for the homeless, we will 
find this same fetish at the bottom of the whole. Wherever we 
find a cannibal turned to a peaceable Christian there we find this 
fetish. Wherever we find a Mohawk or a Modoc putting off his 
war paint and putting on the habiliments of civilization, we find 
this fetish. Wherever we find a savage tribe civilized, humanized, 
and educated we find this fetish. Wherever we find womanhood 
honored, infancy protected, family life held sacred, property secure, 
and liberty regarded, we find this fetish. The worshipers of this 
fetish all read and write : the worshipers of other fetishes cannot. 
The only nation that has lived through thirty centuries of conflict, 
storm, and trouble, is a nation which has crystalized around this 
fetish, which has maintained its existence in spite of invasion, cap- 
tivity, dispersion, and affliction, while all the nations and govern- 
ments of its time have rotted down through their vices and their 
sins : and to-day, in the United States of America the representa- 
tives of that ancient nation of fetish worshipers have a death-rate 
only half as heavy as that of the nation at large, with all its culture, 
its criticism, its skepticism, and its contempt for the Word of God. 
Wherever we find other fetishes we find idolatry, savagery, cruelty, 
debauchery, and all abominations as deep and as dark in the clos- 
ing years of the nineteenth century as they ever were in the darkest 
ages of antiquity. It is only among the worshipers of this partic- 
ular fetish that progress, advancement, and civilization may be 

52 



liii THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

discerned. Surely such a fetish as this is not likely to do a vast 
amount of harm, — especially as it is found that most of the crimi- 
nals and evil men who disgrace and distress our land are men who 
have had little to do with this fetish, and have been brought up out- 
side of its influence. 

Doubtless fetish worship in general is to be deplored and dis- 
countenanced ; but there are fetishes and fetishes, and if the men 
who are opposing this particular type of fetishism would devote 
their attention to uprooting other forms of fetish worship, which are 
widely prevalent in other lands, they might meet a more urgent 
need, and have greater prospects of success. For while hundreds 
of other fetishes have been abandoned and cast aside by the sav- 
ages which adored them, we do not recall a single nation where this 
fetish had established itself, which has ever given it up. 

One thing to be noted is that while other fetishes are manufac- 
tured by old women, medicine-men, and magicians, in dim corners, 
and in dark ages and dark places of the earth, the manufacture of 
this particular fetish has flourished most in the centers of educa- 
tion, intelligence, and civilization ; and since the year 1804 a single 
Society organized in London, the commercial and literary metrop- 
olis of the world, has produced 135 millions of these fetishes, in 307 
languages, 262 of which have been translated between 1803, and 
1893; more than four millions (4,049,756), of them having been sent 
forth during the year 1892-3. And though there have been more 
books written against this fetish, more laws made prohibiting it, more 
men persecuted and slain for having it than any other fetish that 
the world has ever known, yet there are to-day ten times as many 
of these fetishes in existence as there are of any other fetish known 
to man. Indeed this fetish has made such progress, gathered so 
many adherents, and acquired such endowments and evidences of 
material prosperity, that some of the men who seem least inclined 
to respect its merits are yet quite willing to tacitly accept the 
fetish and the emoluments that attend it ; very few of them having 
been known to resign comfortable positions in order to free them- 
selves from all complicity with it. Indeed we can hardly recollect 
one of the opposers of this fetish who has ever run the risk of 
being stoned, sawn asunder, beaten with rods, or of receiving "forty 
stripes save one," because of his opposition to this fetish worship. 
Other fetishes seem to be easily uprooted — this maintains its hold. 
Other fetishes are dead trash ; but " the Word of God is living and 
powerful, cind sharper than a two-edged sword." Can it be that 
the reason why the worship of this fetish dies so hard is because 
it is "The Word of God that liveth and abideth forever?" 

53 



THE PENTATEUCH, 
ITS ORIGIN AND AUTHORSHIP. 



THE PENTATEUCH: 

ITS 

OEIGIN AND AUTHOESHIP. 



BY H. L. HASTINGS. 



Some of the Critics of the present day have a quiet way of assum- 
ing as facts things which they do not undertake to demonstrate, 
and taking for granted what they cannot prove. For thousands of 
years the " Five Books " of the Jewish Law, called the Pentateuch, 
have been attributed to Moses, the Hebrew Lawgiver. Josephus 
states in his treatise Against Apion, (i. 8,) they had "twenty -two 
books, which contain the records of all the past times, which are 
justly believed to be divine. And of them, Jive belong to Moses, 
which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind 
till his death." The names of these five books are of Greek origin, 
and perhaps due to the translators of the Septuagint. They are sep- 
arate divisions of one great work. The rabbinical writers call these 
books "the five-fifths of the law." 

But Modern Critics, instead of discussing the question of the 
origin of the Pentateuch, have taken to discussing the origin of the 
" Hexateuch," the six books, thus including Joshua; and proceeding 
to argue for the late origin of all these books. Of course if they 
can add a number of books which no one ever supposed Moses 
wrote, and which make no claim to a Mosaic origin ; and then can 
jumble and churn them all together as if they were of uncertain 
date, it helps them greatly in their effort to show that the Penta- 
teuch is a late forgery by unknown Jewish writers ; and so the 
whole matter is assumed so quietly, that before persons are aware 
of the fact, the ground is shifted, and half the argument is claimed 
as if it were conceded. 

We do not assent to this re-arrangement. We are not discuss- 
ing a " Hexateuch," — of which no one ever heard till the Higher 

(lv) 55 



Wi THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Critics invented it — but the Pentateuch, the Five Boohs of Moses, 
which have been known for thousands of years as " the Book of the 
Law," which was to be put " in the side of the Ark of the Covenant," 
Deut. xxxi. 26 ; " the book of the law of the Lord ; " the code by 
which the Jewish nation was governed. "The law which Moses my 
servant commanded thee." Josh. i. 7. " The Book of the law of 
Moses which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." 
Josh. viii. 31-35. " The commandment and the law, which Moses 
the servant of the Lord charged you." Josh. xxii. 5. "The stat- 
utes and judgments which the Lord charged Moses with concern- 
ing Israel." 1 Chron. xxii. 13. " The book of the law in the 
house of the Lord." 2 Ki. xxii. 8. "The law of Moses the man 
of God." 2 Chron. xxx. 16. " The statutes, and the ordinances, 
and the law, and the commandment which God wrote for you." 2 
Ki. xvii. 34-37. " The law of Moses which the Lord God of Israel 
had given," Ezra vii. 6. " The book of the law of Moses which 
the Lord had commanded to Israel." Neh. viii. 1. "The law of 
Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all 
Israel, with the statutes and judgments." Mai. iv. 4. 

The Law of Moses and these Five Books of Moses were entirely 
separate from the succeeding books, from Joshua to Malachi. 
They furnished the basis for the commonwealth of Israel ; they were 
the organic law of the nation. Later books contain history, gene- 
alogy, prophecy, theology, and ethical and practical instruction, 
but none of them are legislative or organic. The Jewish nation 
had no legislature ; their laws were not enacted one year and repealed 
the next. Given at first in the wilderness, modified as they stood 
on the borders of Canaan, they henceforth remained the sacred 
heritage of the chosen people, who, clustering around them, have 
maintained their existence under most adverse circumstances till 
the present time. And the Mosaic authorship of the Jewish law 
has been expressly affirmed, not only by the Jews, and Samaritans, 
and Christians, but by numerous heathen authors, such as llecatseus, 
Manetho, Lysimachus, Tacitus, Strabo, Juvenal, Longinus,* etc. 

The man who had twenty reasons to offer for the non-appearance 
of his friend in court, was doubtless possessed of much logical 
power and acumen ; but having stated as his first reason, that the 
man was dead, the court considerately waived the hearing of the 
other nineteen, and dismissed the subject. There are doubtless 
skeptical critics who could give us twenty reasons why the law of 
Moses should not be received as of divine authority and inspiration, 
but they lay their axe at the root of the tree when they state at 

*For References and proofs, see Remarks on the Mistakes of Moses, pp. 4-7. 

56 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lvii 

the outset that Moses did not write the law, and had little or nothing 
to do with it. This fact if once established, carries everything else 
with it, and stamps the whole as a fraud and a forgery. 

It is a wearisome task to assail the Bible in detail, and to deny 
and contradict its declarations oiie by one ; but the matter is greatly 
simplified if we can treat the books themselves as suppositious, 
legendary, and ' unhistorical.' Thus men save the trouble of dis- 
cussing separate points and particulars, and throw the book over- 
board at once : for a man who would prove that the various books 
comprised in the Hebrew Scriptures were forgeries and fictions, and 
then attempt to cultivate reverence for these exploded legends, and 
found a religious worship upon them, might be expected to construct 
a school geography upon the basis of Gulliver's Travels, or found a 
system of religion upon the teachings of the Arabian Nights. 

The question of the origin and authorship of the Pentateuch, or 
the "Five Books" of Moses, therefore becomes a primary question, 
to be considered before we greatly trouble ourselves concerning the 
character and contents of the books themselves. It is consistent 
thus to lay the axe at the root of the tree. If the work is a fraud, 
an invention, and an imposition, we need not discuss its contents or 
its character ; if, however, it is found to be a genuine work, written 
at the time it purports to be, and substantially by the man to whom 
it is attributed, it will then be in order to examine its contents and 
discuss its merits. 

In reading a book there is a natural interest to know its author. 
If it bears upon its title page a well-known name, we usually accept 
this testimony as conclusive evidence of its authorship. If, how- 
ever, we learn that some one else claims to have written the book, 
we then enter upon an investigation to ascertain who is the rightful 
claimant. If a book is openly known and publicly read from the 
time of its origin, its authorship can hardly be a matter of dispute. 
There was a time when the book was unknown, and did not exist; 
when it came to be known there were persons who knew its author- 
ship, and unless they were interested to conceal it, the facts could 
be easily ascertained. If a book purported to be recently discov- 
ered, after having been hidden and unknown for ages, of course the 
question of its authorship would be more complicated; but if a 
book had been written and published, and was generally read, and 
known, and accepted as the production of a certain author ; and if 
no other person ever claimed the authorship thereof ; then unless 
there were very cogent reasons for doubting the veracity of the 
claimant, we should regard the authorship of the volume as settled. 

It is not easy to impose a spurious book upon any nation or 

57 



lviii THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

community, especially a book of laws, rules, and regulations, or even 
a book of histories dealing with matters known to them or to their 
fathers. A spurious book is liable to be criticised, and its defects 
are quite sure to be discerned. Literary deceptions do not usually 
long remain undetected. If a man succeeds in perpetrating a liter 
ary fraud, some sharp-witted investigator will pierce the disguise 
and expose the cheat; or possibly the author himself, through 
remorse, or from vanity, will voluntarily declare what he has done, 
and take to himself the honor or the blame due for his production. 

A few years since there went the rounds of the papers a crude 
rhyme which purported to be the prophecy of a certain " Mother 
Shipton," who lived about 1448, and who in it foretold steam loco- 
motion, the invention of balloons, revolutions in France, the career 
of D'Israeli, the erection of the Crystal Palace, etc. It had a con- 
siderable currency, and was sometimes cited by skeptics as a 
modern instance of prophetic foresight. It reappeared from time 
to time with certain slight additions, the work apparently of some 
" redacteur " or editor, containing additional predictions correspond- 
ing to new developments of current events. At length the author- 
ship of the prophecy was traced to one Charles Hindly, who 
wrote the Mother Shipton prophecy in 1862, and set it adrift to 
take its chances among the critics. 

Toward the close of the last century a Tory Parson, Samuel A. 
Peters, concocted and published that farrago of nonsense and 
absurdity known as the " Blue Laws " of Connecticut ; and there 
are probably on earth to-day a few benighted skeptics* and editors 
of Sunday papers, who really believe that the legislature of 
the New Haven Colony, Connecticut, did enact laws " that no 
husband should kiss his wife, and no mother her children on 
Sunday or on Fast Day ; that a be-^r barrel should be whipped if 
the beer in it worked on Sunday ; that on that day no one should 
cook food, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave himself ; and 
that every male in the colony should have his hair cut round by a 
cap, or, if a cap was wanting, then by the scooped-out shell of a 
half-pumpkin ! " And hence, when legislators and philanthropists, 
seeking to protect both man and beast from the exactions of 
tyranny and greed, by the enactment of laws securing to weary 
toilers that weekly day of rest which is demanded by physical law 
and is essential to the physical and moral well-being of mankind ■ * 
these fomenters of irreligion, anarchy and disorder — who seem to 



*Fo.r facts concerning the importance of the weekly rest day, consult 
"The Wonderful Law," "Remarks on the Mistakes of Moses," "Divi- 
dends," etc., by H. L. Hastings. 

58 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lix 

regard a man as only a cog-wheel in a great money-making ma- 
chine, to be run till it breaks, and then flung away and replaced by 
another — set up their periodic wail about the abridgment of per- 
sonal liberty by " Connecticut Blue Laws," and " Puritanic legis- 
lation." 

But though an intelligent believer in the "Connecticut Blue 
Laws " fiction, might fitly claim a place as a fossil in a dime museum, 
yet there are other specimens which seem equally worthy of pres- 
ervation* And the man who can now believe that a few centuries 
hence the Blue Laws of Connecticut will be adopted and enforced as 
authoritative in that ancient commonwealth ; and that the prophecies 
of Mother Shipton will also be received as a divine revelation ; and 
that both together will be read in all the synagogues of Connect- 
icut every sabbath day, would be justly entitled to a preservation 
as an unnatural curiosity, beside a stuffed specimen of Parson Pe- 
ters' wonderful " Whapperknocker." 

Such a man would probably be credulous enough to believe that 
within the space of a very few hundred years, the laws, proph- 
ecies, and sacred writings of the Old Testament could have 
been forged, imposed upon the people, accepted by them, placed 
among their sacred records, and handed down through successive 
generations as holy writings inspired by the Spirit of the living 
God. And the men who are able to believe that so many different 
writers, capable of producing laws like those of Moses, prophecies 
like those of Isaiah, poetry like that of Job, and psalms like those 
of David ; who in their lif e-time~were scattered over a tract of hun- 
dreds of years ; would all, in an excess of modesty, conceal their 
names, deny the authorship of their own writings, and attribute 
them to certain men long dead, who had written nothing, said 
nothing, and done nothing which should make them specially 
famous, — the men who could believe all this, and could believe that 

*"The true origin of these 'Blue Laws' " says the N. Y. Observer, "is 
that they were written by the Rev. Samuel A. Peters, a renegade Tory, who 
was driven from the colony, and who, in anger and spite published these 
laws in 1781. According to the historian Trumbull he was known as the 
greatest falsifier in the colony, telling such incredibly absurd stories as that 
of the 'Windham Frogs,' and of those unearthly and fearful quadrupeds, 
the 'Cuba,' and the ' Whapperknocker;' and that the Rev. Thomas Hooker 
of Hartford spread the poison of small-pox on the leaves of Bibles which he 
sent to the Indians, and so swept away the great sachem Connecticote — an 
imaginary person — and his warriors, and so laid waste their kingdom; and, 
climax of all, that in the Connecticut river at Bellows Falls, Vt., 'the 
water is consolidated without frost, by pressure, as it swiftly passes 
between the binding, sturdy rocks, to such a degree of induration that no 
iron bar can be forced into it; here iron, lead, and cork have one common 
weight; here steady as time and harder than marble, the stream passes as 
irresistibly, if not as swiftly as lightning.' " 

59 



IX THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

such laws and prophecies, so produced and sent forth, would remain 
for centuries with their authorship unknown, and the imposition 
undetected, until they were accepted and enforced as genuine, 
authoritative, and divinely inspired; would seem to be endowed 
with many of the qualities which enter into the composition of the 
Higher Critic of the present day, to qualify him to sit in judg- 
ment upon " the oracles of God." 

CHANGES IN STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 

It is held by some critics that the Pentateuch could not have 
been written by Moses, because it agrees in style with the later 
Jewish writings ; for it is held that the Hebrew language must have 
been greatly modified through the centuries of their national exist- 
ence. But in answer to this it is said, that the later books of the 
minor prophets do differ in style from the Pentateuch, as well as 
from the earlier prophetical writings, by reason of the introduction 
of the Chaldee element, during the seventy years captivity in 
Babylon. But as regards changes in the ancient Hebrew tongue, 
the question arises, What chance was there for change? This 
language was the legal, social and ecclesiastical language of 
the nation, used in daily life, in law, and in worship. The litera- 
ture of such a nation could not have been extensive. The Mosaic 
law was to be read to the people publicly once in seven years, and 
as the people were homogeneous, having one common organization, 
and as their males were required to assemble three times a year in 
Jerusalem, and as the Israelites were commanded to meditate in 
this law, and diligently teach it to their children, it is not easy to 
see how their language could be corrupted or broken up into 
tribal dialects. They were not a company of petty nationalities 
and principalities ; they were one nation, children of one father, 
bound by one law, and ruled from one center. They were not a 
commercial people, and had little communication with outside na- 
tions : they were separated from other races by their faith, their 
customs, their religion, and their government, all of which were 
prescribed and fixed by the Mosaic law. They were taught to 
abhor and avoid the surrounding idolatries ; and the literature of 
other nations, so far as they had any literature, can have had very 
little effect upon the Israelites. Carried captive to Babylon, of 
course they learned the language of their conquerors ; but till the 
Babylonish captivity their language was substantially unchanged. 

We are not to draw a parallel between things which essentially 
differ. The changes in the English language, springing from such 
diverse sources — Aryan, Koman, Scandinavian, Teutonic, and 

60 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxi 

Norman ', broken up by internecine convulsions and external inva- 
sions, by changes in government and religion, by the spread of litera- 
ture, by the discovery of printing, and the wide acquaintance thus 
gained with the languages and writings of other nations ; can afford 
no criteria for estimating the modifications in the laws and language 
of a quiet, isolated, homogeneous, secluded people like the Israel- 
ites during the lapse of passing centuries. 

The testimony of competent scholars leads to the conclusion that 
nations do not change their languages so readily as some imagine. 
Other influences besides the mere lapse of years must contribute to 
such changes, as can be shown by many illustrative examples. 
Between the times of Plautus, (b. c. 254-184), and Gregory the 
Great, (a. d. 550-604), stretched a period of seven or eight hundred 
years, during which the Latin was a living and ever changing 
tongue. During that period wars had convulsed the nations, revo- 
lutions had rocked the world, Christianity had appeared, Home had 
reached the acme of her glory, and had gone far down in decay, 
and yet these two writers used the same language. New words are 
introduced, old words become obsolete, but the language as a whole 
was the same. 

So down to the year a. d. 530, the Greek was a current language 
with the people, and it was as nearly identical with the Greek of 
seven or eight hundred years before, as the Hebrew of the Jews 
when they went into captivity was with that of the Pentateuch. 
Specimens of Egyptian papyrus of widely different eras show that, 
though separated by an interval of a thousand years, they are of 
the same stamp and general character, and their grammar has not 
undergone the slightest change; and the language of Asiatic 
nations, like their customs and usages, still shares a similar perma- 
nence, notwithstanding the flight of time. 

Arguments of this kind of course depend upon the judgment of 
experts ; but it is not altogether certain that expert testimony is 
absolutely unimpeachable, or that expert judgment is entirely in- 
fallible. We have not yet had the verdict of half a dozen experts 
ivriting independently of each other, and in utter ignorance of each 
other's views and conclusions ; and the consensus of a number of 
critics after comparison and consultation, may not be absolutely con- 
vincing to the average student, who makes no claims to expert 
critical ability, but who still is not disposed to yield to the unsup- 
ported assertion of one or two collusive critical authorities. In- 
deed if these scholars would win our unquestioning confidence, it 
behooves them to test their critical abilities in some manner which 
shall be tangible, and within the reach of the ordinary student. 

61 



lxii THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Dr. Franklin Johnson in an article in The Watchman, has proposed 
the following very sensible method of 

TESTING THE HIGHER CRITICS ON SHAKESPEARE : 

"Some of the statements of the Newer Criticism are so incred- 
ible in themselves that they should be supported by mighty evi- 
dences before we give them credence. We are asked to believe, 
for example, that the critic, working in an ancient and dead 
language, cannot only determine- that a given book was written by 
four or five different authors, but can assign his part accurately to 
each one of them, running the dividing line at times through the 
middle of a sentence, thus ' distinguishing a hair 'twixt north and 
north-west sides.' Tim claim of the critics is so astounding that 
we may well demand the most cogent proofs before admitting it. 
We are told that it is a question which can be settled only by 
experts, and that since all the experts agree, we should believe 
on their testimony. But the experts themselves need to be tested before 
we can believe in their ability to do this thing. The test is easdy 
applied, and if their claims are just, may be easily met. Let the 
critics do in their own language what they profess to have done in a 
foreign and dead language. There are the mixed plays of Shake- 
speare, partly his work, and partly the work of his associates. Let the 
critics solve this problem before they demand too much of our faith. 
Indeed they have tried to solve it, and have failed, as they them- 
selves confess. Coleridge was, perhaps, the last of the students of 
Shakespeare to believe that he could separate the work of the 
great poet from the rest ; and Macaulay pronounces his pretentions 
pure nonsense. The failure of the critics in this case is the more 
instructive for us since the style of Skakespeare is so peculiar, so 
different from that of every other writer, so entirely his own. Let 
the critics of art tell us what part of the frescos of the Vatican 
were painted by Raphael, and what part by his pupils. Until these 
lighter tasks have been accomplished by the experts, we may be 
slow to believe that they have accomplished the heavier." 

If half a dozen of these Higher Critics could be separated and 
secluded, and set at work sorting out Shakespeare ; and then if the 
results of their studies could be printed without comparison or 
collusion ; we might by comparing their work judge of their infalli- 
bility as critics, and the exactness of the science of Higher Criti- 
cism ; and we might then be ready to have them undertake to 
reconstruct the Bible in the same manner and under the same 
conditions and restrictions. Are they ready for such a test? How 
would they endure it? 

62 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxiii 

The editor of The Watchman vouches for the following instance 
illustrating the uncertainty of this style of criticism : "A certain 
editor was interrogated by Prof. A., an eminent critic, as to the 
authorship of an article, and as soon as the question was asked, he 
said: 'Of course you do not care to say, but I know that B. wrote 
it ; it is full of his peculiarities of style.'' A few days later the 
editor fell in with Dr. B., the man to whom Prof. A. had referred. 
' By the way,' he said/ that was a pretty good article that you had 
the other day/ — mentioning the one of which Prof. A. had spoken. 
'I know it was written by Prof. A. It is just like him/" 

Such instances might be multiplied. It is not easy for persons to 
pronounce with infallible correctness concerning the style of per- 
sons who live in their own time, and write in their own tongue, and 
with whom they have personal acquaintance. What dependence 
then can we place upon their critical judgment concerning the 
authorship of documents thousands of years old, written in foreign 
tongues, and under unknown circumstances, and so brief that they 
afford but very limited data for the exercise of critical judgment 
concerning their origin. 

THE GERMAN CRITICS TESTED. 

In the year 1843 there issued from the German press a volume 
entitled Die Bernstein Hexe, or "The Amber Witch/' which was 
edited and had an introduction by Pastor Johann Wilhelm Mein- 
hold, of the Island of Rugen in the Baltic, who related that some 
time after he was appointed to his cure in the Island, in a chest in 
his sacristy he found a number of old documents ; parish registers, 
bills, records of marriages, deaths, and other parish matters ; 
and among them a Roll, written in Old German, in a style now 
disused, which proved to be a narrative, by one of his predecessors, 
of the trial of a woman for witchcraft, in the Island of Rugen. 
This manuscript he deciphered, and thus introduced to the world. 
It caused a great sensation. It gave much information concerning 
the period after the death of Luther and his associates, and learned 
critics indulged in many conjectures regarding its authorship. The 
German reviews took it up, and discussed it for about twelve 
months, and were as delighted with the light it cast upon an 
obscure period, as they were with the critical evidence produced by 
Strauss that the gospel story was a myth, and the history of Christ 
a series of cunningly devised fables. 

At length Meinhold wrote thus to the reviews and newspapers : 
" Reliable critics you are of the Greek of the New Testament 
Books 1 The book you have been reading and praising is the 

63 



Lxiv THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

production of my own brain in my own study in the last five years. 
You were not able to discover the deception and detect the forgery 
in your own language. You may be dismissed as critics of the 
Books of the New Testament." 

The critics were enraged, and assailed him as a lying impostor. 
Bat he was the author of "The Amber Witch," and proved that he 
was ; and criticism had another illustration of the infallibility of 
the learned critics, who expect the common people to accept their 
assertions as the end of both law and gospel ; and who are as confi- 
dent of their ability to assign dates to manuscripts of whose origin 
they can have no positive knowledge, as the Cape Cod skipper 
was of his ability to tell his location in a fog, by smelling of the 
sounding lead as he hauled it up from the bottom of the sea. 

TIME NOTES AND FOOT NOTES. 

Undoubtedly there are certain notes of events contained in the 
different books of the Bible which indicate the time in which the 
author wrote. Thus we are told in Joshua xv. 63, " The Jebusites 
dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day." Then 
we read in 2 Samuel, v. 6-9, that David took the stronghold of 
Zion, notwithstanding the resistance of the Jebusites. This shows 
that the book of Joshua was written before the time of David's 
conquest of Jerusalem. So in Joshua xvi. 10 it is written of the 
Israelites, " they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer, 
but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and 
serve under tribute." But we read in 1 Kings ix. 16, " Pharaoh king 
of Egypt had gone up and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and 
slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a pres- 
ent unto his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Solomon built Gezer." 
This was in the time of Solomon, about a thousand years before the 
birth of the Saviour, and the book of Joshua must have been writ- 
ten before that time. But there are doubtless other instances where 
suggestive or explanatory expressions occur, which are the marginal 
notes or comments of later writers, students or transcribers. 

Nothing is more common than the appending of necessary sup- 
plementary notes to important books and documents. The works 
of most great writers have been issued with annotations by various 
authors. The productions of Shakespeare, Milton, Gibbon, Homer, 
Herodotus, Plato, and most of the ancient philosophers, historians, 
and poets, have been published with comments and explanations, 
needful for the elucidation of obscure passages, the explanation of 
obsolete words, and the information of readers unfamiliar with the 
subject of the writings or the circumstances under which they 

64 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lXV 

were written. Such notes, comments, and explanations, are some- 
times bracketed in the text, but are more usually placed in the 
margin, or at the bottom of the page, and are distinguished from 
the text by certain marks of reference, and by being printed in 
smaller type. 

There are also books in almost every library, which have, in ad- 
dition to such appended annotations, manuscript notes, inserted by 
thoughtful and attentive readers, making needful explanations, 
alluding to related facts, or giving references to other sources of 
information. It is the constant practice of many persons to thus 
annotate the books in their libraries, and so prone are readers to 
do this, that in public libraries stringent rules are necessary to pre- 
vent readers writing on the margins of books which do not belong 
to them. All such annotations being in manuscript, show for 
themselves that they were appended after the volumes were pub- 
lished. 

No books have ever been so largely annotated and commented 
upon as the different books of the Bible. Multitudes of ponderous 
tomes of these annotations have been written and published. 
Every translation of the Bible, or any part of it, includes more or 
less of paraphrase, annotation, and explanation. We have in our 
times scores of Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures. When 
we go back to past ages, we find volumes and volumes of annota- 
tions and comments in the early Christian church. Going still 
further back, we find the Jewish Talmuds and Targums, and the 
Chaldee Paraphrases, which were greatly esteemed and served 
very important purposes among the Jews. 

Now it would be natural to suppose that at still earlier dates, 
notes and explanations might have been added to the text of 
Scripture by any one who chanced to be the possessor of a manu- 
script copy, and who might w T ish to define a locality the name of 
which had been changed, explain something which would otherwise 
be obscure to the uninformed, or place on record some connected 
fact which ought not to be forgotten. And as books were few, 
and writing materials were not always accessible, unless such mem- 
oranda were written then and there, they might never be recorded. 
"We must bear in mind that these books of the Bible which would 
thus naturally be annotated were not printed ; so there were no 
different kinds of type in use to distinguish notes from text. 
There was no proof-reading, or careful editing, as is now the case 
when such books are issued, and any comments written upon the 
manuscript might be in the same hand-writing as the body of the 
book. What then would be more natural than that a future 

65 



Ixvi THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

transcriber, who might not be intellectually acute or critical, and 
might have no knowledge of the special facts in the case, and no 
other copy of the manuscript roll for comparison, should fail to 
notice that certain sentences were comments and additions, and 
should copy them into his manuscript as if they were a part of 
the original work. 

Such considerations as these, it is believed, very reasonably 
explain some of the few passages which are quoted as indicating 
a non-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, — an explanatory phrase or 
sentence being added here or there by some thoughtful reader, and 
embodied in the text by some subsequent transcriber, and thus 
being transmitted to later ages as a portion of the original text. 

But if, in consideration of these difficulties, we are led to admit 
the non-Mosaic and recent origin of these books, we are speedily 
confronted with ten-fold greater difficulties than those we escape by 
such admission. 

The Pentateuch has not been hidden in a corner and recently 
discovered. It was not transmitted by oral tradition for hundreds 
of years before being written down, like the sacred books of the 
East. It does not claim to have been revealed in a single night 
like the Koran, nor dug out of a hole in the ground like the book 
of Mormon ; but it is a book which has been publicly known and 
read in an open and above-board manner for thousands of years. 
It has been brought down to us in the guardian care of three distinct 
and antagonistic classes of people, the Jews, the Samaritans, and 
the Christians. There has not been a week for thousands of years 
when it has not been publicly read in various places, and in the 
ears of multitudes of people; and through all these ages no person 
has ever laid claim to the honor of its authorship, for himself or any- 
one else. Such presumptive evidence of the genuineness of the 
Pentateuch should be met by distinct and authentic traditions, and 
ancient historical records, showing who really did write the books, 
if they were not the work of " Moses, the man of God." 

It may not be needful to assert that every line of these five books 
was personally written by Moses' own hand. He may have em- 
bodied quotations from pre-existing writers, and genealogical rec- 
ords, which had been carefully preserved and handed down by 
previous generations. The books may have been partly written by 
an amanuensis from dictation, or by a secretary or recorder, who 
kept the journal of the days' doings as they came ; and yet such 
books, written by the authority, and under the dictation of Moses, 
may have been really his books, for whose contents he was entirely 
responsible. 

66 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxvil 

Often internal evidence determines questions concerning the 
authorship of a work. A book full of grammatical blunders would 
no* be regarded as the work of a finished scholar, even if it bore 
his name. In the autumn of 1880, a letter purporting to have been 
written by a candidate for the presidency of the United States ; 
which, for political purposes, was scattered in fac-simile through 
the length and breadth of the land on the very eve of the election, by 
some of those politicians who are especially frugal in their use of 
truth on such occasions ; was found to contain certain words so mis- 
spelled as to indicate clearly that it could not have been from the 
pen of a literary gentleman like General Garfield, whose name had 
been villainously appended to it ; but must have been rather the 
production of some politician or office-seeker, who evidently had 
neglected to study his spelling-book, as well as to learn the Ten 
Commandments. 

A book full of the abstrusest learning would not be easily 
accepted as the production of an ignorant boor or clown. A com- 
prehensive treatise on common law would not be expected from a 
police court shyster, or a country Dogberry ; and a treatise on 
hygiene, furnishing the best code of health possessed by any nation, 
and reducing the death-rate of those who observed it to one-half 
the death-rate of the people around them, could not be supposed to 
heve emanated from the mind of a rude, uncultured barbarian. 
But there is nothing in the character of the five books of Moses 
which is inconsistent with the claim that they were written by a 
man learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, brought up in the 
court of the Pharaohs, skilled in the conduct of civil and military 
affairs, and trained and fully experienced as a commander and 
judge, in the management of a great people. Who else can be 
named in the history of the Hebrew people so capable of producing 
such a code and such a record, as he of whom it is said, " There 
arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord 
knew face to face? " 

It is claimed that there are differences in style in the different 
books ascribed to Moses, and that he could not have been the author 
of those books. But there are differences of style in different 
works on various subjects, produced by any man of flexible intel- 
lect, and wide and varied culture. A mechanical, narrow-minded, 
and comparatively ignorant man, possessed of few ideas and limited 
vocabulary, can only write in one style ; but a man acquainted with 
law, medicine, history, politics, poetry, archaeology, ethnology, and 
geography, as he treats upon these various subjects, deals with 
them in varied styles of diction. 

67 



lxviii THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Besides it is more than possible that in preparing the book of 
Genesis, Moses examined and made use of documents, records, and 
traditions, that were written, preserved, and handed down by patri- 
archs and prophets who preceded him, and some of these may have 
been incorporated in his writings without essential change of diction. 

When we remember that eleven chapters in Genesis bring us 
down from the creation unto the calling of Abraham, it will 
easily be seen that the recollection and preservation of such a 
brief record was a slight task, compared with the transmission of 
the 15,677 lines of the Iliad which was handed down for generations 
and perhaps for centuries before it was ever written ; or 1,017 hymns 
of the Rig Veda, a work about four times as large as the Iliad, 
which was not only memorized, but has been brought down by 
word of mouth, independent of books and manuscripts, for thousands 
of years, by a class of priests in India, who are required to know 
the whole of it by heart. 

We must remember that though the time from the creation to 
the flood, a period of about 1656 years, would cover nearly fifty 
generations at the present time ; yet of this period Adam lived 
more than half, or 930 years. At Adam's death Methuselah was 
233 years old, and he lived till 1655, — the year before the flood. 
Thus two lives covered the antediluvian period ; and Noah and 
his house connect the old world that was destroyed with the new 
world that succeeded it. 

As Adam lived 930 years, and Noah was 600 years old at 
the time of the deluge, there were only 126 years between the 
death of Adam and the birth of Noah. But Noah's father was 182 
years old at Noah's birth, and he, having been cotemporary with 
Adam fifty-six years, lived with Noah 595 years, dying five years 
before the flood. Therefore Noah during 595 years, had the oppor- 
tunity of learning all that was known by his own father, who had 
lived fifty-six years the cotemporary of Adam, and was besides, 
cotemporary with Enos, Cainan, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah. 
Shem, Noah's son, was ninety-eight years old at the time of the 
flood, and was thus for ninety-three years cotemporary with 
Lamech, his grandfather, who was fifty-six years old at the death 
of Adam. Living 500 years after the flood, Shem was for 150 years 
the cotemporary of Abraham : hence between Adam and Abraham 
were only three witnesses, Lamech, Noah, and Shem ; Abraham being 
removed by only four lives from the creation of the first man. 

Abraham lived 175 years ; and Jacob was fifteen years old when 
Abraham died, and lived 147 years. At his death Joseph was fifty 
six years old, and Joseph lived to the age of 110, in the midst 

68 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxix 

of the splendors of Egyptian civilization, with literature, records, 
and inscriptions which may be seen to-day upon the walls and pil- 
lars of Egyptian temples, palaces, and tombs. 

The writer has trustworthy unwritten traditions of words spoken 
and acts done by his father grandfather, great grandfather, arid 
great, great grandfather ; besides written records of preceding gene- 
rati3ns, and these traditions have come down casually, charged with 
no important message, but bearing every evidence of truthfulness. 
Now through the long reaches of antediluvian and patriarchal ages 
it would require but six lives to cover the space from the creation 
of man to the establishment of the Israelitish nation in the midst 
of Egyptian civilization and literature. Hence there was nothing 
difficult in the transmission of uncorrupted traditions and au- 
thentic records, from the time of the creation of Adam down to 
the days of Moses and the giving of the Law. 

It is sometimes objected that the recorded longevity of the patri- 
archs is incredible : though no man can tell why a person who 
increases in strength every year for forty years, might not under 
favorable conditions live on indefinitely ; nor why humanity, fresh 
from its Creator's hands, untainted by vices and excesses, and with 
the energies of divine life yet unspent, should not continue to live 
on for centuries. Indeed, such ancient writers as Manetho, who 
wrote Egyptian history; Berosus, who wrote the history of Chal- 
dea; and the Grecian writers, Hesiod, Hecataeus, and Ephorus, 
tjstify that in the earliest ages of the world men lived to be nearly 
a thousand years old. 

There are also traditions and records of great longevity in the 
ages succeeding the times of Noah. Eratosthenes, the astronomer 
and geometer, who was born b. c. 276, and lived some eighty years 
and who, during the reigns of Ptolemy Euergetes, and his successor, 
was for many years superintendent of the great library at Alexan- 
dria, — the largest collection of ancient literature the world has ever 
seen, — in his account of the kings of Egypt, compiled at the request 
of Ptolemy, and drawn, of course, from the boundless stores of liter- 
ature at his command, which he compared with the original records 
kept at Thebes ; states that Menes, — who is believed to be identical 
with Mizraim, the son of Ham, — the first king of Egypt, reigned 
sixty-two years, and died at the age of 252, being lamented by the 
Egyptians as having been cut off in the flower of his age. His suc- 
cessor, Thoth reigned fifty-nine years, and lived to the age of 276 
years ; he was cotemporary with Arphaxad, who lived 433 years. 
A later king, Amachus, reigned seventy-nine years, and Apappus, 
the twentieth king, reigned one hundred years.* 

* Arthur Bedford's Scripture Chronology, page 62. 

69 



lxx T3E IttGttEft CRITICISM. 

The Chinese chronology also gives us similar information. Be- 
ginning with Fohi, the first king of China, who is believed to have 
been the same as Noah, and of whose great age the Chinese records 
make mention : it is said that he reigned one hundred and fifteen 
years. His successor Zinnum, reigned one hundred and forty years, 
Hoanti reigned a hundred years, and died at the age of a hundred 
and eleven. Zaohao reigned eighty-four years, and died at the age 
of one hundred. Chuenhio reigned seventy-eight years, and died 
at the age of ninety-one. Tico reigned seventy years, and lived a 
hundred and five years. Yao, who is believed to have been cotem- 
porary with Moses, reigned one hundred years, and died at the age 
of a hundred and eighteen. Zun reigned fifty years, and lived a 
hundred and ten years.* These long reigns and long lives corres- 
pond quite closely with the lives of the patriarchs of the same date. 
In like manner the story of the deluge finds confirmation in the 
records and traditions of all nations ancient and modern. The 
account of the confusion of tongues at Babel, furnishes the only 
explanation of the existence of thousands of languages in which 
people of one blood express the same thoughts, ideas and affections ; 
and the account of the dispersion and genealogy of the race (Gene- 
sis x., xi.) helps us to trace all nations to their origin. 

It has been claimed that the Mosaic law was written, compiled, 
and published by Ezra, or some one about his time. The book of 
Ezra records the fact of Ezra's reading the law of Moses, and giv- 
ing the sense distinctly, in the presence of the assembled people 
who had returned from Babylon, some of whom were so old that 
they remembered the temple at Jerusalem which had b°en de- 
stroyed seventy years before ; but the record says nothing about 
Ezra forging the law of Moses, or inventing the ritual ; nor could 
such a forgery have passed unchallenged before such an assembly. 
On the other hand the people hearing this law repented of the sins 
which it condemned, lamented their violation of the Mosaic pre- 
cepts, and made haste to renew their covenant with God, and keep 
the commandments which their fathers had disobeyed. And the 
prophet Malachi, who lived very near the time of Ezra, and who 
might be supposed to know as much about what was done in 
Ezra's time as modern critics who lived thousands of years later, 
and thousands of miles distant ; knew nothing about the invention 
of the Pentateuch by Ezra or any of his cotemporaries, but the 
Word of the Lord which he uttered, was, * Remember ye the law 
of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for 
all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." Mai. iv. 4 
* Arthur Bedford's Scripture Chronology, pp. 76-82. 

70 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxxi 

The prominence given to Egypt in the Hebrew Scriptures, is 
utterly inexplicable unless great wonders were wrought " in the 
land of Ham " in the days of Israel's early history. Egypt is men- 
tioned in the Old Testament 683 times, and the Egyptians thirty 
times ; and the references to the land of Egypt, its cities, rulers, 
customs, sins, and idolatries, are unnumbered. Egypt was the 
background of Israel's history, which fact alone can explain the 
Hebrew Scriptures, which shine on every page with the light of the 
flaming pillar and the guiding cloud. The Hebrew prophets and 
teachers were not all of them masters of the art of realistic fiction ; 
and the scribe with his weary and yet persistent pen could offer no 
such golden temptations to the inventors of religious fictions as are 
held out by the enterprising publishers of the present day. The 
countless references to Egypt would have baftied the skill of the 
most astute inventor of history and prophecy ; and yet lynx-eyed 
criticism, after searching for a century among tombs, temples, pyr- 
amids, obelisks, and inscriptions, though determined to find contra- 
dictions, only finds confirmations ; and confesses the accuracy and 
genuineness of the Hebrew Records. 

Wilkinson's "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians," in 
its three volumes, has references to Scripture on more than 230 
pages. Dr. Brugsch in his " History of Egypt under the Pharaohs," 
quotes more than one hundred passages of Scripture, illustrating 
and confirming its statements; and says : (vol. ii. p. 330), "any 
one must certainly be blind who refuses to see the flood of light 
which the papyri and the other Egyptian monuments are throwing 
on the venerable records of the Holy Scripture." 

The spade of the explorer exhibits to us not only " The Castle of 
the Jew's Daughters," the ruined palace of Pharaoh-hophra, at 
Tahpanhes, whither the daughters of king Zedekiah fled for asy- 
lum (Jer. xliii.) ; but also disinters Pithom the treasure city which 
the Israelites built, and exhibits the bricks they made and laid 
there. From the walls of the Temple of Shishonk at Karnak there 
still look down upon us the Jewish profiles of the captives which 
Shishak took from Palestine in the days of Solomon's foolish son, 
Rehoboam ; and the names of the cities he conquered are still 
inscribed upon those temple walls. 2 Chron. xii. 1-8. Each new 
discovery answers some skeptical cavil, or removes some honest 
doubt. And yet, after all this, the Higher Critic asks us to believe 
that these books are a series of " cunningly devised fables," that 
they are fictitious, legendary, and unhistorical ; and that they were 
invented by men who knew little or nothing about Egypt, and who, 
out of a few vague, mythical legends, have constructed this 

71 



lxxii THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

marvellously compacted mass of history and prophecy, on which has 
beat the burning light of scrutiny and investigation for two thousand 
years, but which is now expected to evaporate in the crucible of 
the Higher Criticism of the nineteenth century, notwithstanding 
the fact that every year new discoveries, coincidences, and confir- 
mations more firmly establish the truthfulness of these ancient 
documents. 

One fact worthy of notice is the measurement of time given in 
the Mosaic account of the flood. The flood is described as having 
lasted one hundred and fifty days, from the seventeenth day of the 
second month to the seventeenth day of the seventh month. This 
would make five months of thirty days each. The only known cal- 
endar which had twelve months of thirty days is the ancient Egyp- 
tian calendar, which had twelve months of thirty days, and then 
five intercalary days to fill out the year. During the time of the 
second temple the Jews used months of thirty and twenty-nine days, 
and the fact that the book of Genesis reckons months of thirty days 
each, indicates that it was written soon after the Exode from Egypt, 
and while that method of counting time was fresh in the minds of 
the people. 

Time and space would not admit the presentation of a tithe of 
the facts which confirm the statements and indicate the antiquity 
of the Pentateuch, But it seems proper to cite 

ONE INDEPENDENT WITNESS 

to the authenticity arid great antiquity of these venerable writings. 

On the walls of the fallen palace of Khorsabad, among the ruins of 
buried Nineveh, Austen Henry Layard about the year 1845 discovered 
a sculptured representation of the siege of Samaria, which was pic- 
tured as a fortress around which mounds had been erected, from 
which soldiers assailed and captured the city. The account of this 
siege is recorded among the exploits of Shalmaneser, who com- 
menced it about 724 b. c, two years before his death. The siege 
continued three years, the city finally falling in the first year of the 
reign of Sargon, — who succeeded Shalmaneser, claiming to be the 
descendant of " the three hundred and fifty kings of Assyria," and 
reigned from 722 to 705 b. c. 

In Dr. Eberhard Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Old Tes- 
tament, Translated by Owen C. Whitehouse, are found the following 
statements from the Great Triumphal Inscription of Sargon, corres- 
ponding with the Scripture account in 2 Kings xvii : 

"The city Samaria I besieged, I captured; 27,280 of its inhabit- 
ants I carried away ; 50 chariots of them I took [for myself], their 

72 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxxiii 

remaining effects I caused [my subalterns] to take ; my viceroy I 
placed over them, the tribute of the former king I imposed on 
them/'— Vol. I. p. 264. 

Another inscription, much mutilated, apparently recounts the 
same events : " In the begining .... of the Samaritans .... I 

carried away ; 50 chariots I took as my royal share in the 

place of them [the deported] I assigned abodes* to the inhabitants 
of countries taken [by me]. I imposed tribute on them like As- 
syria."— p. 266. 

The Annals of Sargon for the first year of his reign record that 
" [Merodach Baladan], whom since he, not according to the will 
of the gods, the rule over Babel [had seized for himself, I overcame 
in war and smote] .... seven inhabitants — together with their 
property I transported and settled them [in the land] Chatti." — i. e. 
of the Hittites— the land of Israel, p. 268. 

Another Cylinder Inscription reads : [Sargon], who the people 
of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsiman, Chajap, the remainder of whom was 
carried away, and whom he transported to the land of Bit Omri " — 
i. e. the land of Omri, in Palestine, p. 269. 

Again, in the Annals of Sargon's seventh year b. c, 715, he says: 

"They of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsiman, Chajap, the Arbaeans, the 
distant who inhabit the land of Bari, whom no scholar and messen- 
ger-sender has known, who to the kings my fathers never had offered 
their tribute ; in confidence on Asur, my lord, I subjugated them, their 
remnants I transplanted, and settled in the city Samaria." p. 270. 

In the words of Schrader, "Thus the inscriptions place the fact 
in the clearest light that Sargon settled subjugated tribes in Sama- 
ria. Now, in the passage first cited from the Annals, Babylonians 
are represented as being deported to the Land of Chatti, which, as 
we have seen already, included Northern Israel ; while the Bible 
represents Babylonians as being quartered in Samaria. There can- 
not therefore be any doubt that the settlement of the Babylonian 
population to which the Bible refers, is that which is reported in 
Sargon's Annals as having occurred in the first year of his reign, 
i. e. 721 b. c. This deportation, however, was subsequently fol- 
lowed by later detachments, perhaps on several occasions, at all 
events in the seventh year of Sargon's reign, 715 b. c. We find 
Sargon also in other instances carrying out repeated deportations 
of population to one and the same place." p. 270. 

The counterpart of these Assyrian Records taken from the walls 
of the palaces of Nineveh, may be found recorded in the Jewish 
Scriptures, in the seventeenth chapter of the second book of Kings, 
which thus refers to the same transactions : 

73 



lxXlV THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

" Hoshea reigned in Samaria over Israel nine years, and did 
that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." " Against him came 
up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, 
and gave him presents." Afterward Hoshea conspired with the 
king of Egypt, and sought to throw off the Assyrian yoke. Then 
the king of Assyria took Hoshea captive, and shut him up, and 
bound him in prison ; and invaded the land of Israel and besieged 
Samaria three years. In the ninth year of Hoshea, " the king of 
Assyria," whose name is not here given, but who was Sargon, who 
had succeeded Shalmaneser, " took Samaria, and carried Israel 
away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the 
river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." This was declared 
to be in punishment for their sins, for " The Lord testified against 
Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, 
saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments 
and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your 
fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. Not- 
withstanding, they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like 
to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their 
God. And they rejected His statutes and His covenant that He made 
with their fathers, and His testimonies which He testified against 
them ; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after 
the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the 
Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them. And 
they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made 
them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and wor- 
shiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. And they caused 
their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used 
divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the 
sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger. Therefore the Lord 
was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight : 
there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. Also Judah kept 
not the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the stat- 
utes oj Israel which they made." " So was Israel carried away out 
of their own land to Assyria. And the king of Assyria brought 
men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from 
Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Sama- 
ria, instead of the children of Israel : and they possessed Samaria, 
and dwelt in the cities thereof." 

This portion of the land of Israel was thus stripped of the bulk 
of its own inhabitants, who had sinned in disobeying the law which 
God had given them, and whose national unity was thus broken up by 
deportation and dispersion. Their territory was then re-peopled from 

74 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxXV 

other regions, by other races who had been conquered, who, in ac- 
cordance with this same policy, were carried from their own homes 
to the land of Israel and planted there. Of course they brought 
with them all the superstitions, errors, and idolatries of heathen- 
ism, which they continued to practice in the land of Israel. From 
some cause calamities overtook them. The author of the book of 
Kings says, " And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling 
there, that they feared not the Lord; therefore the Lord sent lions 
among them, which slew some of them." This state of things led 
them to consideration, "Wherefore they spake to the king of As- 
syria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in 
the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land : 
therefore he hath sent lions among them, and behold they slay them, 
because they know not the manner of the God of the land." This was 
quite in accordance with the general opinion of those times, when 
men believed that certain gods were the special protectors of cer- 
tain kingdoms and nations. The Assyrian king was disposed to 
consider their condition, recognized the justness of their con- 
clusions, and speedily devised a remedy. " Then the king of As- 
syria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye 
brought from thence ; and let them go and dwell there, and let him 
teach them the manner of the God of the land. Then one of the priests 
whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and dwelt in 
Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the Lord." But these 
inhabitants of Samaria were not Israelites, nor did they propose to 
abandon their hereditary idolatries. They simply added the God of 
Israel to the list of deities which they worshiped, and while " every 
nation made gods of their own," they still gave a partial recogni- 
tion to the God of Israel. And so they " made unto themselves of 
the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for 
them in the houses of the high places. They feared the Lord, and 
served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among 
whom they had been carried away." Revised Version. They thus 
continued their idolatries and their mongrel worship, and the writer 
declares that " Unto this day they do after the former manners : 
they fear not the Lord, neither do they after their statutes, or after 
their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the Lord 
commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel; with whom 
the Lord had made a covenant, and charged them, saying, — Ye 
shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve 
them, nor sacrifice to them : . . . And the statutes, and the ordinan- 
ces, and the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, ye 
shall observe to do for evermore, and ye shall not fear other gods." 

75 



lxxvi THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

About half a century later, there seems to have been another 
deportation of foreigners into Samaria by Esar-haddon King of 
Assyria, the son and successor of Sennacherib. Ezra iv. 2 At this 
time the worship of the God of Israel, doubtless in a corrupted 
form, seems to have predominated, if we may believe the Samari- 
tans themselves, who claimed to have offered sacrifices to the God 
of Israel " since the days of Esar-haddon/' Ezra iv. 2. 

We thus gather from the ancient monuments of the Ninevites, 
confirmed by the parallel records of the Jewish people, these facts , 
(1) that the Ten Tribes prior to 722 b. c, had the Lord's " statutes," 
" ordinances,"" law," and "commandments which he wrote," (2 Ki. 
xvii. 37) ; by which they were taught the fear of God ; (2) that they 
disregarded this law, and for their neglect of it were doomed to 
captivity ; (3) that their nation was overthrown, and that they were 
carried into distant lands, their places being filled with heathen 
nations ; (4) that in consequence of the troubles which these heathen 
encountered, they determined to seek the protection of the God of 
Israel ; (5) that one of the priests of Israel was brought back to 
teach these untrained heathen how to fear and worship the Most 
High God ; (6) that as they retained their idolatries, and refused to 
submit wholly to the law of God, a mingled and corrupt form of 
worship prevailed among them ; (7) that from the days of Esar- 
haddon they offered sacrifices to the God of Israel. 

About a hundred and thirty-four years after the conquest of 
Samaria by Sargon, Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and 
the Jews themselves were carried away captive to Babylon. After 
seventy years they returned to undertake the rebuilding of the tem- 
ple at Jerusalem, in which work this mixed community of Samari- 
tans, in whom Idolatry seems to have decayed under the influence 
of the law of God, desired to unite with them. Ezraiv. 1-2. Their 
assistance being refused, {hey then exerted themselves to prevent 
the rebuilding of the temple and the walls. Josephus (Antiq. Bk. 
xi. ch. viii.), informs us that they welcomed criminals or refugees 
from Jerusalem, which of course would be displeasing to the Jews ; 
and, repelled from worshiping at Jerusalem, they finally erected a 
rival temple on Mount Gerizim, where Mannasseh, brother of Jad- 
dua the Jewish high priest, and son-in-law of Sanballat the governor 
of Samaria, presided, — he having refused to dissolve his unlawful 
marriage, and having thus left the Jews and joined the Samaritans. 
This temple remained till it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, b. c. 

130. 

Now as " unto this day," when 2 Kings xvii. 34 was written, the 
Samaritans retained their heathenish ways of worship, it is evident 

76 



TELE HIGHER CRITICISM. lXXVii 

that 2 Kings xvii. 34 was written before the days of Ezra, at which 
time the Samaritans were anxious to unite with the Jews in build- 
ing the second temple and in worshiping the God of Israel to whom 
they had offered sacrifice " since the days of Esarhaddon." Ezra iv. 2. 

The worship of the ten tribes had been corrupted by " the stat- 
utes of Israel which they made." 2 Ki. xvii. 19. For this apostacy 
" the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his 
servants the prophets." 2 Ki. xvii. 23. And as the captive priest 
was brought back to teach the Samaritan colonists " the manner of 
the God of the land" (2 Ki. xvii. 26), that they might escape the 
calamities which had overtaken them in their idolatry, it cannot be 
supposed that he would instruct them in the calf worship of Bethel 
for which Israel had just been carried into captivity, and so plunge 
them into still deeper troubles ; but rather that he would teach 
them the law and commandments and statutes which had brought 
peace to the sons of Israel so long as they obeyed them. But 
to teach these statutes and laws and judgments, he must have had a 
copy of the Pentateuch ; and the fact that before the time of Ezra 
this mingled people had been won from their idolatries to the wor- 
ship of the one God of Israel, shows that they must have been 
instructed out of the Mosaic Law, which had subdued their idola- 
tries and powerfully influenced their lives. 

The refusal of the Jewish rulers to allow so large an alien ele- 
ment as the Samaritans to incorporate itself in the Jewish nation, 
which thus must have lost its racial purity, resulted in much bitter- 
ness of feeling, which was increased by other circumstances, until 
the Jews had " no dealings with the Samaritans." John iv. 9. 
Matthew in his Gospel, written especially for the Jewish converts, 
notes the fact that at their first going forth Christ said to his disci- 
ples, " Into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." Matt. x. 5. 
Yet the Saviour himself was not unwilling to enter " into a village 
of the Samaritans," though " they did not receive him, because his 
face was as though he would go to Jerusalem." Luke ix. 52-53. 
The Saviour had no prejudice against the Samaritans. He visited 
Sychar, a city of Samaria, and there told the woman of Samaria 
of the water of life which he gave, and revealed to her first the 
secret of his Messiahship. John iv. 26. And yielding to the 
entreaties of the Samaritans " He abode there two days, and many 
more believed because of his own word," saying: We have heard 
him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour 
of the world." John iv. 42. He took note of the fact that of the 
ten lepers cleansed only one, who returned to give glory to God, was 
a " stranger," — a Samaritan. Luke xvii. 11-18. He taught the 

77 



lxXViii THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

catechising, quibbling Jewish lawyer his lesson concerning love to 
his neighbor by the example of "a certain Samaritan," whose 
kindness he has embodied and embalmed in the story of the man 
who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves. 
Luke x. 29-37. Indeed his friendliness for the Samaritans seems to 
have provoked the criticism of the Jews, who said, " Say we not 
well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? " John viii. 48. 
The last sentence that he spoke to his disciples was, " Ye shall be 
witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in 
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Acts i. 8. 
And his disciples when persecuted " were scattered abroad through- 
out the regions of Judaea and Samaria," and " preached the gospel 
in many villages of the Samaritans." Acts viii. 1, 25. There 
Philip preached, and Samaria " received the word of God ; " and 
thus a portion of that people were called out into that new frater- 
nity, the church of the living God. The Samaritan people, how- 
ever retained their existence as a nation or tribe, distinct alike 
from Jews, and Christians, Greeks and Romans. 

In the time of the Roman Emperor Vespasian they revolted, and 
11,600 of them were slain; and from that time they maintained a 
troubled and contentious existence, being equally at variance with 
Jews and Christians. In 1099 they came under the power of 
the Crusaders, remaining under Christian domination most of the 
time to 1244, when they passed under Mohammedan rule. Since 
1517 they have been subject to the Turks. 

Near the close of the fifteenth century Joseph Justus Scaliger 
(a. d. 1540 — 1609), the tenth of the fifteen children of the learned 
Julius Caesar Scaliger, — a man who if not learned in all the wis- 
dom of modern times, was yet able to speak thirteen languages, 
read many others with facility, and repeat the Greek poets from 
memory, — remembering some of the references to the Samaritans 
in earlier writers, addressed letters to the two Samaritan congrega- 
tions at Nablus and Cairo. Answers to these letters were returnsd 
after Scaliger's death, and were translated into Latin by John 
Morin, and given to the public. This long-forgotten people was 
thus brought to public notice, and they have since been repeatedly 
visited. They dwell near by Jacob's well at Shechem, or Nablus, — 
a corruption of Neapolis or New-Town, which was built by Vespa- 
sian a little west of the older town, that was then in ruins. 

The Samaritans still number about one hundred and fifty persons. 
They are probably the oldest community on earth which has main- 
tained its existence uninterruptedly in the same place. Israel has 
been scattered among all nations ; Jerusalem has been trodden 

78 



THE FIIGHER CRITICISM. lxXlX 

under foot of the Gentiles ; Christians have been persecuted and 
dispersed ; empires have risen and fallen ; but the Samaritans 
still linger in their ancestral seat, and perpetuate the traditions 
that have come down to them from the far off past. Why have 
they thus been preserved? 

In connection with the re-appearance of the Samaritans on the 
stage of history, it was remembered that some of the early fathers, 
as Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, of Alexandria, Procopius of Gaza, and 
others, had recorded the fact that these Samaritans were possessors 
of the Five Books of Moses. This fact had been lost sight of for a 
thousand years, but in 1616 Pietro della Valle obtained a copy of 
the Samaritan Pentateuch from the Samaritans in Damascus. De 
Sancy the French ambassador at Constantinople, sent this manu- 
script to the library of the Oratore in Paris, in 1623, and it was 
published in Le Jay's Paris Polyglot of 1645, by John Morin, or 
Morinus. In addition to this there was discovered a Samaritan ver- 
sion of the Pentateuch, a different work, in the Sam aritan dialect, 
which resembles both the Chaldec and the Syriac, and which is also 
of great antiquity. This also was first printed by Le Jay in the 
Paris Polyglot, and was regarded as older than the schism between 
the Jews and Samaritans, After this issue of the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch in 1615, Archbishop Usher obtained six additional manuscript 
copies from the East, and by the aid of these and the Parisian 
Polyglot, Brian Walton printed a corrected edition of the Samaritan 
Pentateuch in the London Polyglot of 1657. In the time of Benja- 
min Kennicott, 1718-1783, other copies had been discovered, so 
that as many as sixteen Samaritan manuscripts were accessible, and 
were collated by Kennicott for his critical edition of the Hebrew 
Bible. 

This Samaritan Pentateuch, while it has certain variations, often 
agreeing with the Septuagint, and shows some marks of alteration 
is to all intents and purposes essentially the same as the Five Books 
of Moses in the possession of the Jews. It is in the Hebrew 
tongue, but in an older style of letters than the Jews now use. 
Now where did the Samaritans get these Five Books'? They did 
not get them from the Christians, for the Samaritan community 
was far older than the Christian church. They did not get them 
from the Jews, for the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans. 
They did not get them in the days of Nehemiah, for at that tim9 
the two communities were at open variance, the Jews rejecting the 
overtures of the Samaritans, and the Samaritans exerting them 
selves to hinder the Jews in rebuilding their desolate city and tem 
pie. They could hardly have got them from the Jews while 

79 



1XXX THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Whence then did they derive 
these books? The book of Joshua was an ancient book, written 
before the time of David and Solomon, as we learn by comparing 
Josh. xv. 63, with 2 Sam. v. 6-9 ; and Josh. xvi. 10, with 1 Ki. ix. 
16. But the Samaritans do not have the book of Joshua, nor 
indeed any of the prophets, they have simply the Five Books of Mo- 
ses ; and those books, our critical friends insist, were invented, 
forged, or manufactured somewhere in the time of Hezekiah, or 
Jeremiah, or Josiah, or Ezra, or somebody else, nobody knows 
when, or where, or by whom. 

The Higher Critic tells us that " the original of the Samaritan 
Pentateuch " was " brought from Jerusalem by Manasseh," "a copy 
of the Pentateuch that Manasseh carried with him."* It is much 
easier to assert this twice than it is to prove it once ; and so the 
critic chose the easier course. Not a vestige of evidence is 
adduced for the assertion ; though its truthfulness is essential to 
the existence of many of the modern critical theories ; but ordinary 
Bible readers are expected to believe this statement solely on the 
bare assertion of a Higher Critic, who speaks " as one having 
authority, and not as the scribes." What proof he has that not a 
single copy of the Pentateuch remained in the land of Israel, after 
the bulk of the Ten Tribes were carried away, he does not say . 
what evidence he has that the priest who was carried back to Sama- 
ria " to teach them how to fear the Lord," had no copy of the Pen- 
tateuch, he does not state ; nor does he inform us by what means 
the Samaritans, destitute of the divine law, had been led to sacrifice 
to the God of Israel for more than a century ; nor has he told us 
why the Samaritans in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah should 
desire to unite with the Jews in the worship of a God whose law 
they had never seen, and which, in fact, was only a recent inven- 
tion ; nor why they, smarting under the rejection of their over, 
tures made to the Jews, should now adopt the newly forged law and 
ritual of a nation which had spurned their friendship, and with 
whom they were at variance. Nor does he give a reason why Ma- 
nasseh should carry with him to Samaria a copy of a law which he 
must have known was a recent forgery invented by lying priests, 
— a law which he himself had disregarded and refused to submit 
to, — and the provisions of which had already caused his exile from 
his own people ; or why Manasseh, going from Jerusalem to Sama- 
ria three or four hundred years before Christ, did not take with 
him a "Hexateuch" instead of a "Pentateuch," with all the other 
prophecies, forgeries, and fictions which had recently been trumped 

* C. A Briggs in Johnson's Cyclopedia, article, Samaritans. 

80 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. lxxxi 

up and imposed upon the Jewish people. All such questions the 
Higher Critic discreetly overlooks. Hence we lose the assistance 
of his oracular utterances in settling these vital issues. 

From the sources of information at our command it appears that 
about two hundred and seventy-five years before the time of Nehe- 
miah, the Ten Tribes were carried away into captivity for serving 
idols, and thus disobeying the command of God, who had said unto 
them, " Ye shall not do this thing. Yet the Lord testified against 
Israel and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, 
saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments 
and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your 
fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. 
Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks 
. . . and they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made 
with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against 
them, . . . and they left all the commandments of the Lord their 
God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a 
grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal." 
"And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the command- 
ment, which he wrote f or " them, they disobeyed, " therefore the 
Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his 
sight : there was none left but the tribe of Judah only." 2 Ki. xvii. 

Having thus cleared the land of the peopve who disregarded the 
Law which God" wrote" for them, the Assyrian king replanted it 
with heathen captives from the East, who, being afflicted with wild 
beasts, presented their petition to the king ; whereupon he com- 
manded that one of the priests whom they had carried away from 
Samaria should be brought back, who " came and dwelt in Bethel, 
and taught them how they should fear Jehovah." It would seem neces- 
sary that this teacher of the fear of the Lord should have a text book 
containing that written law, for disobeying which Israel had been sent 
into captivity ; and as the only such book in existence was the Pen- 
tateuch, he must necessarily have carried that with him. He did not 
need the historical writings, nor did he need the ' Hexateuch/ nor 
do the Samaritans have it to this day. His people, the Ten Tribes, 
had revolted from the tyranny of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, 
and had broken off all connection with the house of David ; hence 
they had no interest in David's Psalms or Solomon's Proverbs ; and 
when one of their number went back to teach these new settlers 
" the manner of the God of Israel," he needed only a copy of the 
Mosaic law. This was the only portion of the Jewish Scriptures 
which the Samaritans have ever received. This they did receive, 
and under its influence they were won back from idolatry, and 

"81 ~^ 



Ixxxii THE HIGHEK CRITICISM. 

from " the days of Esarhaddon " offered sacrifices to the God of 
Israel. And through all the vicissitudes of ages this unique little 
commonwealth, differing from all the nations and races of the 
earth, has guarded this sacred treasure, the Mosaic Law. They 
evidently had it in the days when Nineveh exalted itself in its 
splendor as the capital of the mighty Assyrian empire ; they have 
it now when Nineveh is "empty, and void, and waste," and when 
the shepherds of Assyria slumber, her nobles dwell in the dust, 
and her people are scattered upon the mountains, and no man 
gathereth them. Nahum ii. iii. They had it when Babylon was 
the glory of the Chaldees' excellency, the lady of kingdoms, the 
most splendid city on the face of the earth ; they have it to-day 
when Babylon is heaps, desolate, and forsaken. They had it in 
the times when Persia spread her power and built her palaces ; 
they have it now when that power is broken, and those palaces and 
cities are in ruins. They had it in the days of Grecian dominion, 
when Alexander and his successors ruled ; they have it still, when 
Alexander's empire is but a dream of the past. They had it when 
Rome was the proud mistress of the world, and her eagles hastened 
like vultures to prey upon them ; and now when mighty Rome has 
fallen, and the glory of the Caesars has forever passed, within the 
whitewashed walls of the tiny synagogue of Nablus, in a silver 
case, is still carefully guarded the age-worn manuscript of the 
Samaritan Pentateuch. The priests in charge of it know or care 
nothing about the squabbles of the Higher Critics, the forgeries of 
"post-exilic" scriptures, or the work of the dozens of "redactors" 
that the Higher Critics have discovered or invented. They are in- 
different to the opinions of Jews or Gentiles ; but they call them- 
selves "the Shomerim,'' or custodians of the Law; and they guard 
that old time-stained manuscript, which they declare has been 
handed down to them from Eleazar, the third son of Aaron ; and 
while nations and empires have risen and fallen, decayed and 
perished, this little flock, guarding this Law of Moses, and paying 
heed to the precepts, has outlived races, and empires, and dynasties, 
and still retains its existence as a witness for this ancient Law. 

The Higher Critics dissect this Law as the spurious production 
of Jewish priests and patriotic liars, who forged it after the return 
of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity ; but they are met by 
this copy of the Pentateuch providentially placed for safe keeping in 
the hands of the Samaritans some twenty-five hundred years ago; 
and when the Law of Moses, having fallen among the Higher Crit- 
ics, lies stripped and wounded, and half dead, the Good Samaritan 
comes as of old, to bind up the wounds, and pour in oil and wine. 

82 



THE IirGIIEU criticism:. iXXXlll 

And we have not only the testimony of the Samaritans, but that 
of the scattered sons of Israel. In Principles of Biblical Criticism, 
p. 244, J. J. Lias says, "I have recently seen a communication from 
the Jews of Yemen, Arabia, to those in Jerusalem, in which the 
former state, that their ancestors never returned to Judea after the 
captivity. Yet their version of the Scriptures is precisely identi- 
cal with that of their brethren." Who forged their Scriptures? 

The criticisms of the Higher Critics are not entirely new. Many 
of them are simply Old Wine in New Bottles, the skepticism of the 
past masquerading as the Christianity of the present. Celsus and 
Porphyry, Voltaire and Paine, Astruc and Strauss have had their 
day and said their say. And whatever their personal characters 
may have been, any facts or arguments which they offer are enti- 
tled to fair, candid, dispassionate investigation. It does not disprove 
a man's argument to prove that he is a knave or hypocrite. He 
may be all this, and yet he may present difficulties which demand 
careful investigation. So the Higher Critics of the present day 
are entitled to a fair and candid hearing. If they were a trifle less 
oracular and omniscient in their attitude and tone, they might be 
more agreeable instructors, for humanity learns best of those v>ho 
are "meek and lowly in heart." Xevertheless facts are facts, and 
facts will stand, however they are stated ; truth will prevail how- 
ever imperfectly it may be declared. But " he that believeth shall 
not make haste/' and those who do make haste in such important 
matters, sometimes reach disastrous conclusions. 

It is easy to cut a boat adrift from its moorings, but who can 
tell what currents will bear it away, or on what rocks it may at last 
be wrecked? So it may be easy to unsettle the faith of honest but 
ill taught souls, but who shall answer for the results?* Whether the 
Higher Critics of the present day will ever follow their own premises 
to their legitimate conclusions or not we cannot say; but some 
of their disciples will be sure to do it ; and though the inventors 
and disseminators of doubt and uncertainty are not likely to aban- 
don their posts, sacrifice their salaries, or desist from praising the 
Scriptures whose authority they have so thoroughly undermined ; 
yet many common sense readers will not be likely to long retain a 
reverence for exploded fictions, nor accept a volume of forged laws, 
priestly inventions, pious frauds, and old-wives fables, as a divine 
revelation and an infallible rule of faith and practice. And the 
amount of mischief Avhich may result from the broadcast sowing of 

* "A statement has been -widely circulated in the public press, that the 
number of persons in Germany who this year declared themselves to be of no 
religion is fourteen times as great as in 1871. Is there no connection between 
this fact and the manner in which German criticism has treated the Bible?" 
— Principltc of Biblical Criticism, by J . J, Lias, p. 216. 

83 



lxXXlV THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

undigested theories and critical cavilings, no mortal can estimate. 
In closing a sermon before the students of Cornell University, 
Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor of The Christian Advocate, said : 

" A series of sermons was published in Scotland, teaching that 
almost everything held to be fundamental to Christian faith had, 
by the researches of modern scholarship, been found untenable, and 
speaking of what remains in an indefinite way. These discourses 
were republished in the United States. Among those who read 
and accepted them was a woman in the city of New York, of great 
intelligence and intellectuality and of high culture. 

" A year or two later she removed to a suburb upon the Hudson 
River, continuing to attend jthe Presbyterian Church, but frankly 
informing the pastor that she had lost faith, and attributing the 
change to those discourses. Afterwards she became ill and died of 
a lingering disease. During the months of steady but not rapid 
progress to the grave, the pastor frequently visited her, making 
every effort to re-establish her faith in the simple provisions of the 
gospel, but in vain. To the last she said that she knew nothing 
and was not able to believe anything positively. So much had been 
shaken that she was not certain there was anything that could not 
be shaken. 

" Less than a year after her death, the author of those sermons 
was summoned to trial for heresy. When the charges were submit- 
ted he asked a little time for reconsideration, and submitted a state- 
ment that when he prepared those discourses he believed them-, but 
further reflection had convinced him that he had erred in taking 
many things for granted that had not been proved, deducing con- 
clusions that were not warranted even by his premises, and express- 
ing himself in an unguarded manner, and that he desired to retract 
several of the discourses in whole, and in part all but one or two. 

" But the woman who had given up her faith in the essentials of the 
gospel for faith in him, had died in darkness." 

Those who watch for souls as they that must give account, that 
they may do it with joy and not with grief, cannot shirk their respon- 
sibilities. They must meet hereafter those whom they have "nour- 
ished up in words of faith and sound doctrine," or whom they have 
blindly misled into devious and dangerous paths. And the Master 
to whom we all must give account has said, " It is impossible but 
that offences will come, but woe unto him through whom they 
come. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about 
his neck and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one 

Of THESE LITTLE ONES." Luke XVii. 2. 

84 



SCRIPTURAL TRACT REPOSITORY, 4" CORWHILL, BOSTOX, MAS* 



A STUDY OE THE PENTATEUCH. 
INTRODUCTORY. 



A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH 



FOR POPULAR READING: 



BEING AN INQUIRY INTO THE AGE OF THE SO-CALLED BOOKS OF 

MOSES, WITH AN INTRODUCTORY EXAMINATION OF RECENT 

DUTCH THEORIES, AS REPRESENTED BY DR. KUENEN's 

" RELIGION OF ISRAEL. " 



RUFUS P. STEBBINS, D. D., 

Late President, Lecturer on Hebrew Literature, and Professor of 
Theology in the Meaduille Theological School. 



Second Edition. 



SCRIPTURAL TRACT REPOSITORY: 

H. L. HASTINGS, I MARSHALL BROS., AGTS., 

Boston, Mass., No. 47 Cornhill. | London, 10 Paternoster Row, E. C. 

1895. 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



Standing in the drift and whirl of modern research, investiga- 
tion, and discovery, and observing the remarkable results reached 
by students and critics, considerate people are sometimes led to in- 
quire, " Will there be anything left when Criticism has completely 
done its work? " And this question seems more natural from the 
fact that much of the investigation and criticism of the day is 
claimed to be the work of trained experts, whose processes are 
held to be beyond the understanding or judgment of ordinary ob- 
servers, who must simply accept conclusions which they have 
neither opportunity nor ability to verify. 

In matters of exact science, the conclusions of professional ex- 
perts are usually accepted with little question, even though they 
are subject to frequent revisions ; but in the case of moral, relig- 
ious, and eternal verities, the prudent man hesitates ; partly be- 
cause of the importance of the questions involved ; partly be- 
cause the experts themselves seem to agree in nothing except in 
contradicting the conclusions which he has believed to be well 
grounded; and partly because he has in his own experience a 
knowledge of certain of the matters involved in the controversy, 
to which he believes that some at least of these critical experts 
may be strangers, and without which they can hardly be accepted 
as authoritative interpreters of all the facts in the case. 

Under such circumstances the prudent man, instead of inconti- 
nently accepting the contradictory theories of a dozen Higher Crit- 
ics, falls back upon his experience, his observation, and his com- 
mon sense ; and investigates for himself as far as he is able ; being 
aided therein by others whose studies have qualified them to in- 
struct him, — though their investigations may not have led them so 
far from their customary orbit as some of the " wandering stars " 
which are so often flashing out amid the darkness of night, and 
fading into f orgetfulness before the morning's dawn. 

Among those who have discussed the question of the origin of 
the Hebrew Scriptures, the author of " A Study of the Pentateuch," 
has certain claims to the attention of the candid enquirer. A 
(lxxxv) _- — — - 



lxxxvi publisher's preface. 

conservative representative of a somewhat radical school of thinkers, 
he occupied a platform where the most absolute freedom of opinion 
and speech was tolerated, and his position as a teacher and leader 
in such a fraternity placed him beyond the fear of censure, or the 
temptation to stifle his convictions, or suppress his honest conclu- 
sions.* 

In discussing the origin of the Five Books of Moses, he was 
entirely untrammelled. He was under no obligations to reach the 
conclusions he reached, or defend the position he had taken. He 
was retained by no party, and was bound by no creed, confession, 
vow, pledge, or promise to maintain the position he assumed. He 
was entirely free to study the facts in the case, and declare the 



*Rufus Phineas Stebbins was born March 3, 1810, in South Wilbra- 
ham, Mass. Of humble parentage, he grew up under the discipline of pov- 
erty and hard work. His mother was a devoted Christian, at a time when 
the" somewhat frigid orthodoxy of the Puritans was being touched by the 
fervor of old time Methodism, which had a stronghold in Wilbraham Acad- 
emy, of which Wilbur Fisk was principal in his early years. Eufus in his 
early days was strong, vigorous, and athletic. He spenthis summers upon the 
farm, his winters hi the public school or in the academy; taught school, and 
at the age of twenty entered Amherst College, — a classmate of Henry Ward 
Beecher^— with whom he graduated at the age of twenty-four. Embracing 
the opinions of Dr. Channinir, he entered the Divinity School at Cambridge, 
with Henry Ware, J. G. Palfrey, and Andrews Norton as teachers, and 
E. H. Sears, H. W. Bellows, C. A. Bartol, as fellow-students. He grad 
uated in the class of 1837, was united in marriage with Miss Eliza Liv- 
ermore, of Cambridge, a sister of the well known scholar, George Livermore, 
and became pastor of the church in Leominster in 1837, where he spent 
seven years preaching, teaching, preparing boys for college, etc. In 1844 
he was called to the presidency of the Meadville Theological School^ where 
he remained twelve years, going from thence to a pastorate in Woburn, 
Mass., in 1856, where he remained eight years. The next six years were 
spent in Cambridge, and in occasional preaching in other regions round 
about, after which he removed to Ithaca, N. Y., spending seven years 
preaching and lecturing upon theological subjects. In 1877 he removed to 
Newton Center, where he preached for nearly eight years. 

He possessed a sound mind, a sound body, an indomitable will, tireless 
energy, strong, positive views, a Puritan's sternness of exterior, with warm 
sympathies, and the genial, trustful heart of a child. In a ministry of 
forty-eight years he only lost one Sunday by sickness. "As a preacher," says 
one who knew him from boyhood, "he delighted in the Commandments, 
and his honest, burning, indignant soul would have liked it better if there 
had been three or four more. As a young man he drove his burning plow- 
share through old fields whose habits and sins had pastured peacefully to- 
gether for generations. . . . As a teacher he belonged to that class of minds 
who deal with the definite and the positive. His opinions were deliberately 
formed, steadfastly entertained, and honestly and unflinchingly expressed." 

He died suddenly at Cambridgeport, August 13th, 1885. When told that 
the end was near, he was not surprised nor alarmed. He said, " I have 
had a Ions and happy life, a very happy life, I have no desire to live but to 
care for my wife. I'have no last words to speak. Everything has been said 
that needs to be said," and so he fell asleep. The old physician who watched 
over him said, "I can truly pray that my last end may be like his." 



publisher's preface. lxxxvii 

truth as he found it, without fear of censure, ostracism, or condem- 
nation, and no accusation of insincerity or inconsistency could be 
brought against him for so doing. 

Under such circumstances he undertook to investigate and ascer- 
tain the exact facts in the case. He keeps to the main question, 
he discusses no side issues ; he does not undertake to demonstrate 
the authority, the inspiration, the " errancy" or ''inerrancy" of 
the laws of Moses. He takes in hand the single question whether 
Moses did write those books which bear his name, or whether they 
are the spurious productions of unknown impostors in later gene- 
rations. This question he examines from a purely literary point of 
view, and presents his conclusions in intelligible language for the 
acceptance of the common people. How well he has succeeded in 
his " Study," those who read must decide. 

The author of this " Study " proposed in a second edition to cor- 
rect some slight verbal inaccuracies which had been noticed ; but 
his earthly labors are finished, and he is consequently unable to 
reply to his critics, or in any way improve the work which he had 
done. A few errata which he left behind him have been corrected 
in their places by the publisher, who has also carefully looked over 
a large collection of critiques and reviews which have appeared in 
the various papers, — most of them being heartily appreciative, — to 
see if they presented anything which required further attention. 

One review, in the defunct Index, gives us in its opening sen- 
tence a sufficient intimation of the "sweet reasonableness" of 
its character, as follows : 

"Dr. Stebbins has written a book which is the counterfeit pre- 
sentment of his striking personality; a book that is loud and vehe- 
ment, belligerent, bellicose, bursting with sacred rage." 

The candid reader is thus advised as to what he will find within 
the pages of this book. He can read it for himself, and thus 
verify the statements of this writer. The main point which the 
Index makes is, that on pages 70 and 71 of this book " Every pas- 
sage mentioned is beyond Ex. vi. 2, and it is the doctrine of Kuenen 
and all other scholars who accept the documentary theory, that 
beyond Ex. vi. 2 Jehovah is used almost exclusively." We give 
this remark for what it is worth, and quote another statement: 
"One of the mist charming instances connected with the publica- 
tion of Dr. Stebbins' volume, is the review of it by Prof. Toy, of 
the Cambridge Divinity School. . . Prof. Toy's review of Dr. 
Stebbins' study was an exquisite piece of work : it took off the 
Doctor's head so quietly that his mouth is talking still, in absolute 
unconsciousness of the Professor's deadly stroke." 



lxxxviii publisher's preface. 

So much for the Index ; and now in the interests of perfect fair- 
ness, we take the liberty of reprinting what Prof. Toy had to say on 
the subject, as contained in the Christian Register, of December 15, 
1881. As his criticism is endorsed by the Index as absolutely fatal 
to Dr. Stebbins, and as Prof. Toy has written an article which sat- 
isfied the critical instincts of the Index, without violating the 
decencies of civilized life, we are glad to give it place, that people 
may see what can be said by an able man, in brief space, on the 
other side of this question. 

THE AGE OF THE PENTATEUCH. 



BY PROF. C. H. TOY. 



To the general reader, who looks only at the surface of the question, the 
opinions of scholars concerning the Pentateuch may seem to he in a chaotic 
state. One eminent critic pulls down what another has toiled to build up. 
As to the division of the text among the several Elohistic and Yahvistic 
authors or editors, and the dates of the several parts, different writers 
appear to be hopelessly at variance. The Egyptologists, the Assyriologists, 
the historical critics, and the grammarians seem to be pulling in opposite 
directions; and the unlearned reader is dazzled and confounded by mutually 
hostile arrays of facts, all drawn from the same source, but used by various 
investigators to establish various and sometimes mutually contradictory 
positions. Yet in this critical madness a method is discernible: it is evident 
that opinion among the great body of authorities has been steadily moving 
toward a late redaction of the Pentateuch. The earlier school of De "VVette 
and Von Bohlen has passed away. Hupfeld, Ewald, and Bleek have been 
superseded; and later writers, representing different sides of the investiga- 
tion, — Dillmann and AVellhausen, the literary-grammatical, Gramberg and 
Baudissin, the cultural, Kuenen and Oort, the evolutional, and Schrader 
and Friedrich Delitzsch, the Assyriological, — have entered into their labors, 
retained a certain part of their results, gathered new evidence, settled 
some points with greater precision, and essayed to lay the foundations of a 
science of Pentateuch criticism, not without differences among themselves 
(for disagreement is a necessary accompaniment of living research), but 
with an increasing clearness of perception that certain facts carry with them 
certain consequences. On the other hand, a different school of critics hold 
fast to the traditional view of the Pentateuch, for which they find new 
support in modern discoveries and investigations, on the basis of certain 
canons of interpretation. Out of the midst of the conflict of opinions, 
principles are emerging, whose value is not destroyed by the different inter- 
pretations that may be given to details. 

No one will deny the desirableness of laying the principles and results of 
a science clearly before the mass of intelligent readers, who have not the 
time to go into the investigation for themselves. Dr. Stebbins has under- 
taken to do this in a sort for the Pentateuch question. He addresses himself 
not to scholars, but "to the sound sense and sober thought of the people." 



publisher's preface. lxxxix 

But, instead of acting as teacher simply, he takes the position of advocate, 
and appeals to the people as judge. He asks them to compare his argu- 
ment with their Bibles, and "exercise the same sound practical judgment 
respecting its validity that they exercise in the common affairs of life" (p. 3). 
Sound judgment, however, can be exercised only where there is acquaint- 
ance with the facts ; and, with all respect for the intelligence of the people, 
they have not the requisite acquaintance with the facts. These facts, the 
acquisition of which costs years of study, cannot be given in one book, or 
mastered by a few hours reading. It would have been better, in my opinion, 
if Dr. Stebbins had either made an argument for scholars or given a simple 
exposition for those who are not specialists in this department. His book, 
as it stands, is too elementary for the former class, and too much crowded 
with detail for the latter. But this, if it be a fault, is a fault of construc- 
tion, and does not effect the validity of his argument. He gives us here the 
results of his personal investigation, " extending over a period approaching 
half a century," in the form of an external and an internal argument for 
the early origin of the pentateuch, preceded by a criticism of Kuenen's 
"Religion of Israel." Clear, vigorous, sometimes trenchant in style, not 
abstaining from an occasional laugh at the follies of Kuenen and others, the 
book is interesting in itself, apart from the respect with which the opinion, 
of its esteemed author will be received. 

In this argument, especially as addressed to the general public, it is very 
desirable that the main canons of criticism should be clearly stated; and it 
is to be regretted that our author has nowhere done this. When in our 
inquiry into the age of the Pentateuch, we come to look into its composition 
and into the evidence derived from other books, we find that its material is 
various, including bits of historical narration of very different character 
and import, and laws indicating very different degrees of religious and 
ecclesiastical development, and that the other books of the Old Testament 
contain references and allusions to men and things which appear also, 
though not always in the same shape, in the Pentateuch. We must care- 
fully scrutinize these references to events and uses of words before we can 
determine how they bear on the question of the age of our Pentateuch. 
Suppose, for example, that a popular custom is mentioned in Ruth (4: 8) as 
existing several generations before David's time, and that something like it 
(though the two in this case are by no means identical) is found in Deuter- 
onomy (25 : 9) : this does not prove that the book of Deuteronomy was com- 
posed in those early times, it need show nothing more than that the author 
of the book introduced this old custon into his code ; and, if there be other 
considerations pointing to a late origin for Deuteronomy, the presence of 
such laws will not stand in the way of the conclusion. Or, if the prophet 
Hosea (chapter 12) shows acquaintance with the history of Jacob, this does 
not authorize us to infer that he had our book of Genesis before him: there 
may have been in existence in his day some brief compendium of the lives 
of the three patriarchs, or he may have quoted simply from the oral tradi- 
tion ; and, if other considerations lead us to assign a post-exilian date to 
Genesis, these references to Jacob will present no difficulty for such date. 
That the pre-exilian prophets and other writers speak of sacrifices, feasts, 



XC PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 

and other religious observances mentioned in the Pentateuch has nothing to 
do with the date of composition of our books of Leviticus and Numbers. 
No one doubts that such things existed from very early times, and that 
regulations concerning them may have been early committed to writing. 
The question is, whether there are not in these middle books of the Penta- 
teuch some laws that are not referred to before the exile, and are not 
explicable by the pre-exilian history. No word is more misleading in this 
respect than the common term tora, translated "law" in the common 
version. Its proper meaning is "instruction," and it occurs abundantly 
in the prophets in this general, untechnical sense. For example, the 
prophet Isaiah (8: 16, 20) uses it of an exhortation or instruction on a par- 
ticular point which he has himself given a few verses before ; and its occur- 
rence, in this simple shape, is no proof of the existence of any definite 
code, much less of that which is contained in our present Pentateuch. 

Confronted by these simple canons, the greater part of Dr. Stebbins' 
external argument for the antiquity of the Pentateuch, as it appears to me, 
falls away. It is true, as he says, that sacrifices and feasts and other old 
usages are mentioned in the prophets and in historical narrations as con- 
nected With early times, that the word "law " occurs frequently before the 
exile, and that during and after the reign of Josiah the expression "law of 
Moses" comes into use; but these facts are consistent with the view that 
there existed from an early period a body of usages which were traditionally 
referred to Moses, and that this body of common law, constantly changing 
its character by growth and decay, was put into shape by a prophetic writer 
in the reign of Josiah (smaller collections of laws having perhaps before 
this been committed to writing), and afterwards enlarged and systematized 
by other prophetic and priestly men. This external argument, therefore, 
fails to establish other existence of our Pentateuch before the exile. 

The same defect inheres in the internal argument, so far as it is based on 
indisputable facts. It does not prove what is claimed. It is undoubtedly 
true that there is minuteness of detail in the Pentateuch (as in the descrip- 
tion of the Tabernacle), that various laws are said to have sprung from 
definite historical occasions, that there are frequent references to the wilder- 
ness, and that along with many discrepancies there is a general concinnity 
in the structure of the book. But to affirm that these facts establish its 
wilderness origin is to deny that later Hebrew writers were capable of 
elaborating a connected and tolerably consistent narrative from a mass of 
traditions, usages, laws, and narrations that may have come down from 
remote times, gathering volume and acquiring shape with each generation. 
Such an elaboration is, however, not only conceivable, but quite in keeping 
with Oriental ideas and practice; and it presupposes neither mental blind- 
ness nor moral depravity. A pious man of Josiah's time, feeling deeply 
certain wants of his people, might, without offence to his sense of truth and 
honesty, gather up the best existing laws which in his opinion rested on a 
Mosaic basis, and send them forth under the name of Moses, prefaced by a 
hortatory discourse put into the mouth of the great lawgiver; and pious 
priests and scribes during and after the exile might, with equal conviction 
of right, still further combine and arrange and interweave into the history 



XTJBLISHER'S PREFACE. XCi 

succeeding laws and usages, which, believing them to proceed from the God 
of Israel, they would without hesitation refer to the man whom the ac- 
cepted tradition regarded as God's instrument for revealing to his people 
all that was necessary for their national religious life. There would be no 
obtuseness or dishonesty in all this. These writers were not modern critical 
historians: they were simply pious Jews, who could, not doubt that what 
they believed to be the divine law had been given by Moses, just as the 
pious, learned, acute Jews of the Talm.udic period believed without dishon- 
esty that the Man of the Great Synagogue wrote the book of Daniel, and a 
later generation held that Ezra had introduced the square Hebrew conso- 
nants and the vowel points, though the latter had come in almost under 
their noses. 

The correctness of the representation of Egyptian matters in the Penta- 
teuch is undeniable. Ebers, for example, has illustrated this in a very 
striking manner. The proper inference from this is that the Egyptian 
narratives in Genesis and Exodus rest on correct tradition or observation, 
not that they were written by Joseph and the ancestors of Moses; and still 
more decidedly not that the books of Genesis and Exodus were composed at 
that time. If the ark and the urim and thummim are of Egyptian oricrin, 
this may show that the Israelites once dwelt in Egypt, but it gives no tes- 
timony to the date of our Pentateuchal books. 

There is, finally, the argument from language, the alleged antiquity of 
style of the Pentateuch. Here, again, it is necessary to move cautiously, 
both in stating the facts and in drawing conclusions from them. The list of 
words peculiar to the Pentateuch cannot be said to be evidence of date, for 
it is now commonly held that their presence is due to the fact that in the 
later verbal recensions the Tora, or Law, was dealt with sparingly by 
reason of the greater sacredness that attached to it. Other books, which 
may have been equally old, were revised, and this was left almost 
untouched. Then there is no grammatical-literary objection to puttinc 
Deuteronomy in the seventh century B.C., or to assigning most of the legal 
parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers to the period of the exile. As to 
the remaining portions, it is difficult to discover any important differences 
of style between Genesis and Exodus on the one hand and Judges and 
Samuel on the other; and these last may be assumed to have been composed 
during the exile. That there are earlier fragments in the historical books 
and the Pentateuch, few critics will be disposed to deny; but there is noth- 
ing in the language calling on us to date any of them earlier than the days 
of the writing prophets. Dr. Stebbins pertinently points out that the style 
of the Tora is free from Aramaisms, and that the text therefore belongs to 
the pre-Aramaic period, — that is, it is almost certainly not later than the 
fifth century b. c. Farther than this, it is difficult for the purely linguistic 
argument to go. 

I believe I have stated the main grounds on which the work under review 
rests its defence of the antiquity of the Pentateuch, not with the purpose 
of discussing the general question, but simply to test the validity of these 
grounds; to ask whether our author's very interesting and instructive 
grouping of the facts carries with it the conclusion that he draws, or 

91 



xcii publisher's preface. 

whether some other supposition may not equally well explain the phenom- 
ena. The space does not allow an examination of his criticism of Kuenen's 
book; but his remarks are based on the same principles that he announces 
in his main argument, and stand or fall with them. The real question at 
issue is the propriety of the historical method employed by Kuenen and 
others, not the correctness of their particular results. Dr. Stebbins thinks 
this method essentially vicious, and proposes one of his own, which, though 
it is skillfully defended, seems to me not to be satisfactory. 

To this courteous critique, Dr. Stebbins, in the succeeding num- 
ber of the Register, briefly replied as follows : 

"I have no desire to enter into any criticism of Prof. Toy's 
notice of my little book. . . Only one passage demands notice. 
Prof. Toy says: 

'The real question at issue is the propriety of the historical method em- 
ployed by Kuenen and others, not the correctness of their particular results. 
Dr. Stebbins thinks this method essentially vicious, and proposes one of his 
own, which, though it is skillfully defended, seems to me not satisfactory.' 

"This is not an exact statement of the case, if I correctly 
understand the passage. I deny that Dr. Kuenen's method is his- 
torical, and show by a quotation from him that his whole ' method ' 
is based upon 'a supposition with respect to the Mosaic period' and 
' our (his) conception of historical development.' See • Study/ pp. 
14, 15, 16. If the history does not conform to these, it is wrong: 
if it does, it is right. This, I said, was not the historical method, 
but a purely empirical method. On the other hand, I 'assumed' 
nothing, I 'supposed' nothing. I had no hypothesis of 'human 
progress' to which all ancient records must be conformed. I laid 
down a canon of historical criticism to which all historical enquir- 
ies must conform to result in truth. It may be found on page 
eighty-three of my book: 

' If we find that an ancient book is referred to, in all later works, by 
the name which is now given to it, and that references are made to it, 
and that quotations are made from its contents, such substantially as we 
now find in it, then the proper, the necessary conclusion is that the book is 
the same as that which we possess.' 

" Yet Prof. Toy regrets that I have not 'clearly stated the main 
canons of criticism.' That canon I scrupulously regarded - and, 
by regarding it, the conclusion was reached that ' the Pentateuch 
is substantially of the Mosaic age, and largely, either directly or 
indirectly, of Mosaic origin.' Till this ' canon of historical criti- 
cism' is proved incorrect, or my adherence to it imperfect, this 
' conclusion will stand unshaken. Rerus P. Stebbins." 

The conclusions reached by some of the Higher Critics may be 
expressed in the words of Dr. Toy in his tract on " Modern Biblical 
Criticism" (pp. 9-11) where, referring to the account of "the com- 
plete conquest of the land under Joshua," contained in the books of 
Joshua and Judges, he says : 

92 



PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. XC111 

" This story, which violates all historical probability, must be 
rejected; the march from Egypt through the wilderness, and the 
exploits of Moses and Joshua must be regarded as a mass of legend, 
whose kernel of history, if there be any, we are not able to extract. 
This reasoning applies with still greater force to the stories of 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, in Genesis. The ancestors of 
Ehud, Gideon, and Jepthah could not have led such lives. These 
biographies are beautiful legends, with here and there vague remi- 
niscences of events of the time of the judges and later. . . . The first 
great Law-book, Deuteronomy, appears under Josiah. . . . During 
the exile Ezekiel and others develop the ritual ; . . . a century or 
two later the Levitical law (as we have it in Leviticus and Num- 
bers) is introduced into Palestine by Ezra. . . The book of 
Chronicles, written several centuries after the exile, . . . makes 
David and his successors acquainted with the whole law of Moses, 
and must be looked on as untrustworthy in its accounts of Religion." 

"Historical probability" is one thing, historical truth is another. 
Inventors of falsehoods take pains to make them as probable as 
they can. Improbable things often happen, and truth is often more 
strange than fiction. Fifty years ago, in the middle of the nine- 
teenth century, you could buy a man in Fiji for seven dollars, and 
slaughter him and eat him. It would " violate all historical prob- 
ability " to believe that now you could not purchase a man there at 
any price, and that under the light of the Bible nearly every house 
in those islands has become a place for God's worship, and more 
than nine-tenths of the people may be found on the Lord's day peace- 
ably assembled to hear the Word of God and worship the Most High. 

Twenty centuries hence, when the Higher Critics of to-day are 
classified with the Dodo, the Megatherium, and other extinct species, 
another race of observers, explorers, and investigators may arise, 
who will scout the tales of the nineteenth century cannibalism and 
conversion, as "a violation of all historical probability ," pro- 
nounce the biographies of Judson and Livingstone and Paton myth- 
ical legends ; and reasoning from the historic accounts of the opium 
trade in China, the rum traffic in Africa, and other enterprises en- 
gaged in by "Christian nations " such as England, Germany, France, 
and America, will, on critical grounds, conclude that the New Tes- 
tament was an unknown book at the close of the nineteenth century, 
and that the Sermon on the Mount was never preached at all. 

There are historical probabilities concerning the future as well as 
the past. It is a poor rule that will not work both ways ; and 
it will be hard to find anything in the stories of the Judges which 
is a greater violation of " historical probability " than the locomotive, 
the steam-ship, the telegraph, the telephone, the electric light, 
the electric motor, and a hundred other things, which would have 

93 



xciv publisher's preface. 

been spurned as day-dreams a century ago, but which now stand 
before us as undeniable facts. It is the unexpected that happens, 
and it is the unexpected which is thought worthy of record. The 
improbabilities and impossibilities of a century ago are the prosaic 
and common-place facts of to-day. The question is not " What is 
probable?" but "What is true?" Dr. Stebbins has some words 
upon this point well worthy our attention. 

"As an illustration of the danger of rejecting as authentic his- 
tory remarkable occurrences and marvelous statements of numbers, 
I will call the reader's attention to the following fact respecting the 
class presenting themselves for entering Harvard College, 1881. 
Two hundred and forty young men presented themselves, of whom 
one hundred and fifty-four were admitted, and eighty-six rejected. 
These men were numbered from 1 to 240, of these the Jirst 5, with 
one exception, in every 20 were rejected. Thus 1-5, inclusive, 21-25, 
inclusive, 41-45, 61-65, 81-85, 101-105, 121-125, 141-145, 161-165, 
181-185, 201-205, 221-225. Now, the chance that this would hap- 
pen, or a priori be sure, is as one to infinity, or as one to a row of 
figures around the earth. It looks like a carefully arranged plot. 

"But this is not all. All the number 9's in the even 10's (as 29, 
49, 69, 89, etc.) to 149 were rejected, while all the number 9's in the 
odd 10's (as 9, 19, 39, 59, etc.) to 159 were admitted, and also all 
numbers above 159 having 9 for the last figure, as 169, 179, 189, 
199, etc. That such should be the result of the examination of 240 
persons seems incredible. The statement would be instantly rejected 
by many critics if found in the Hebrew books. Indeed, things not 
half as improbable would be scouted. 

" A remarkable corespondence of years is found in the ages and 
time of service of the presidents of the United States. Jefferson 
was born eight years after John Adams, and Madison eight years 
after Jefferson, and Monroe eight years after Madison, and John 
Quincy Adams eight years after Monroe. This is curious enough, 
and antecedently to proof incredible enough; but there is some- 
thing to render it more incredible. John Adams, Jefferson, Madi- 
son, and Monroe were each sixty-six years old when they retired 
from the presidency. Nor is this all. The first three died on the 
4th of July, and two of the three died on the same 4th, and these 
two were signers of the Declaration of Independence. Now the 
improbability of such a coincidence is as one to millions of millions. 
Yet it is true that it did take place. It will not do to be hasty in 
denying the occurrence of very strange things." 

Those who seek to eliminate the supernatural from the Bible, 
have yet to face the fact that " wonders " and " wonderful works" 
are the special characteristics of the God of Israel. He showed 
" signs and wonders upon Pharaoh," Neh. ix. 10. "His wonders" 
were to be declared " among all people." Ps. xcvi. 3. " Many, O 
Lord my God, are thy wonderful works." Ps. xl. 5. " He hath 
made his wonderful works to be remembered." Ps. cxi. 4. 

Q4. 



publisher's PREFACE. xcv 

The world around us is full of marvels. We are fearfully and 
wonderfully made. The microscope and telescope are constantly 
revealing wonders that are almost beyond belief. He who wrought 
wonders of old is working wonders still. " He that will watch for 
providences will never lack providences to watch." God liveth 
yet, and he hears, and answers, and delivers, and helps his people. 
Doubters may doubt, despisers may "wonder and perish ;" but they 
that are of faith are still " blessed with faithful Abraham," and 
"the people that do know their God, shall be strong and do exploits." 

A book which contained no knowledge " too wonderf ul " for an 
ignorant and short-sighted man, and which recorded no events but 
the commonplace occurrences of ordinary life, would have little 
claim to our regard as a divine revelation, and indeed little reason 
for its own existence. A book from God must be a book of 
"depths, both of wisdom and knowledge;" and a book which records 
His works, must have judgments which are "unsearchable" and 
"ways past finding out." Rom. xi. 33. And, as a musical compo- 
sition, recording harmonies which angels might bend to hear, would 
convey no sound or thought to an unmusical eye and ear ; as a 
mathematical treatise which measured the universe would be but a 
bewildering mass of senseless figures to the untaught reader ; as 
the most eloquent words ever penned would be utterly meaningless 
to one who looked upon them written in an unknown tongue ; — so 
a divine book, a record of the wondrous works of an almighty God, 
inspired by his Spirit, and filled with his wisdom, would naturally 
be as unintelligible to the " wise and prudent," whose wisdom is 
only " earthly, sensual and devilish," as a page of Sanscrit would 
be to a country clod-hopper, or a treatise on the higher mathemat- 
ics to a savage who could not count ten. There must be a " prepa- 
ration of the heart" which "is from the Lord," before we can 
" know the things that are freely given to us of God." We must 
take Christ's yoke upon us ; and as we learn of him who is "meek 
and lowly of heart," and find rest to our souls, we shall see that 
one step in wisdom's ways prepares for another, and shall be better 
fitted to explore those " treasures of wisdom and knowledge " which 
are hid in Him "in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead 
bodily." "The world by wisdom knew not God." There are ran- 
ges of truth which the intellect of the " natural man " or " soulual 
man," (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15), fails to grasp. "The wisdom of this world 
is foolishness with God. He taketh the wise in their own crafti- 
ness." 1 Cor. iii. 19. 

A judicious writer has remarked : " It is a common mistake with 
men of no real piety, to suppose that what they know of other 

95 



xcvi publisher's preface. 

subjects qualifies them to judge properly of religion ; but religion is 
a subject sui generis, and requires not only the exercise of reason, 
but the possession of its own organ ; and this only God can give, and 
he will give to every one who rightly seeks it. ' The natural man 
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God . . neither can he know 
them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spirit- 
ual judgeth all things.' " 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15. This principle when 
understood may explain much of the contradictory and discordant 
criticism of the day. It does not help a blind man to give him 
more light : what he needs is sight. The apostle's first errand to 
the Gentiles was "to open their eyes;" then he was "to turn them 
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God." 
Acts xxvi. 18. Intellectual greatness does not insure the knowl- 
edge of God. Egypt built pyramids and worshiped cats! Many a 
man, wise with the world's learning, needs to be taught that " the 
fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ;" and to "receive the 
kingdom of God as a little child." 

As Dr. Leonard Staehlin declared before the Leipsic Pastoral 
Conference : "It is a righteous Nemesis that the Old Testament 
conceals its content in the presence of a treatment to which, for a 
time, it has been subjected. There is in the Old Testament a certain 
something which cannot be reached by the hammer, the lever, the 
crow-bar, which have been used around the building. Remarked 
Oettinger once, ' God has so ordered his Word that the learned do 
not get behind it.' And when people try to resolve the revelation 
of God, contained in the Old Testament, into common history, the 
peculiarity of its contents remains untouched, and the method 
followed in the matter can have no authority as a historical method, 
for which it gives itself out, for, by this method, in the place of 
really miraculous events, are bu; the supposed events of ordinary 
history, of which absolutely nothing is known, because the sources 
are wanting. In opposition to all such clamorings stands the Old 
Testament, in its holy, quiet heights, like the God whom it declares, 
surrounded by darkness, enveloped in clouds, but out of which, like 
lightning, the whole majesty of the divine revelation breaks forth." 

In conclusion, let it be remembered that the questions involved in 
this discussion are momentous. If God has spoken in these books we 
should know it ; if he has not thus spoken we should not be deceived. 
May He who is the Way the Truth and the Life, open our under- 
standings, that we may understand the Scriptures, and grant to us 
the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. 

H. L. HASTINGS. 
Boston, Mass.. U. S. A., 
April, 1895. 

m 



AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 



PREFACE. 



This work is substantially a reprint of a series of articles pub- 
lished in the years 1879 and 1880. I have not found it necessary 
to essentially modify any of the arguments there presented in the 
present publication. Several works and many articles, at home 
and abroad, have since been published ; but they do not in the 
slightest degree affect the force of the argument presented in 
the following " Study." 

It seemed better to give the criticism on the Dutch School as 
represented by Dr. Kuenen as originally written than to attempt 
by partial rewriting and voluminous notes to introduce the sub- 
stance of it into the body of the work. In this manner, the argu- 
ment of the " Study " is not interrupted by noticing the objections 
and answering the arguments and criticising the evidence which 
are offered by many writers as well as by Dr. Kuenen. Professor 
W. Kobertson Smith's lectures on the Old Testament and the 
Jeicish Church were not published till this work was more than 
half through the press. I have examined it w r ith care, and find 
very little which would have required any notice, had I received 
it in season. Though he takes substantially the same ground on 
many points as the Dutch school, he denies that Deuteronomy is 
a forgery of the priests of the time of Josiah, and that the Books 
of the Chronicles are historical forgeries to sustain the new claims 
of the priesthood. The three principal reasons which he gives for 
the late origin of the Pentateuch, especially the ritual portion of 
it, are : first, the neglect of observing the law, and direct viola- 
tions of it, down to the division of the kingdom or later ; second, 
a distinct priestly family or caste did not exist till the time of 

C3) 



4 



PREFACE. 



Ezra ; and, third, the early prophets, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and 
Micah, refer to no written law, and denounce ritual observances. 
I have examined with care whether the evidence adduced to sus- 
tain these reasons is sufficient to justify the author's opinion, and 
do not find it necessary to add but few special notes to the body 
of this work, in order to show that it fails to confirm the theory 
of the late origin of the Pentateuch. The «• Introductory on Dr. 
Kuenen's Religion of Israel " examines the validity of these rea- 
sons as presented by the Dutch school, and 1 do not wish to 
enlarge this work by a mere repetition of the argument in another 
form and in other words. The same may be said of the special 
arguments of Graf and several other writers. 

This work is not addressed to scholars, but is an appeal to the 
sound sense and sober thought of the people. It has been pub- 
lished at the request, however, of scholars, professors in theo- 
logical schools, and ministers of different denominations, for their 
own use and for the use of their classes and parishes. I have 
not, therefore, filled the bottom of the page with references, as 
it would have been very easy to have done ; for they would have 
been utterly useless to the great body of the people, for whose 
instruction I send forth this book. Let my readers take their 
Bibles and compare my argument in this " Study,'' as they read 
it, with the sacred narrative, and exercise the sound, practical 
judgment respecting its validity which they exercise in the com- 
mon affairs of life, and I have no fear of the result. May the 
Source of all Truth bless this endeavor to find and proclaim it ! 

Rufus P. Stebbins. 



CONTENTS. 

Pagb 



Introductory on '*Kuenen's Religion of Israel," 7 
A Study of the Pentateuch. 

I. Introduction, 75 

II. External Evidences, 82 

III. Internal Evidences, 157 

Analytical Index, 231 



INTRODUCTORY 



DR. KUENEN'S " RELIGION OF ISRAEL." 



Of the brilliant constellation of Dutch Biblical crit- 
ics which has just risen above the horizon, Dr. Kuenen 
appears to be the principal star. His works on The 
Religion of Israel and The Prophets and Prophecy in 
Israel are by far the most extensive and elaborate of 
any works of this new and able school of writers. 
The eyes of scholars are now turned from Germany to 
Holland ; and the wonder of some and the admiration 
of others are challenged to the utmost. Condemnation 
and laudation will be visited upon these authors in 
unstinted measure; for they give no quarter to dissen- 
tients, and will, therefore, receive none from them. 
They write in a tone of perfect self-reliance, and hold 
in low estimate any opinions not corresponding with 
theirs. The infallibility of the late Pio Nono was 
modesty compared with the dogmatic certainty with 
which they make affirmations upon subjects about 

* The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State. By Dr. A. Kue- 
nen, Professor of Theology at the University of Leyden. Translated from the 
Dutch by Alfred Heath May. Vol. I., pp. ix.,413. 1874. Vol. II., pp. 307. 
1875. Vol. III., pp. 345. 1875. 8vo. Williams & Norgate, 14 Henrietta 
Street, Covent Garden, London, and 20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh. 



8 INTRODUCTORY. 

which such scholars as Gesenius, Ewald, De Wetie, to 
say nothing of others hardly their inferiors, hesitated 
to give an opinion, much less to dogmatize. The 
emphatic manner in which they announce as finalities 
some of the flimsiest of their speculations and hypoth- 
eses provokes a smile.* There will be ample and fre- 
quent opportunity to illustrate this signal characteristic 
of the work under review in the course of this essay. 
The style of this work of Dr. Kuenen's is as dry as 
it is dogmatic. We are informed, by those competent 
to judge, that the translator has done no injustice to 
the original. It is true that freshness and raciness 
are not to be expected as the prime qualities of a work 
of this kind ; yet it ought to be exempt from jejune- 
ness, and to be animated and warm with the dignity 
and importance of the subject. It should surely 
kindle some enthusiasm to trace the history of a 
people like the Jews, and describe a literature which 
includes such writings as the Book of Job, the Psalms, 
and the prophecies of Isaiah and Amos and Joel and 
Hosea. It is true that Dr. Kuenen is not writing a 
history of the literature of Israel, and may not have 
felt any of the admiration which an appreciative reader 
of these marvellous productions cannot suppress, as 
he feels the glow and heart-throb in every syllable of 
the ancient poet. His eye was fixed almost exclu- 
sively on "altars" and "asheras" and "bull-gods," 
and "chiuns" and "chemoshes" and " Molochs " and 
"Levites" and "priests" and the "ritual" that was 
not before Ezekiel "certainly," not before Ezra "prob- 
ably." Dr. Kuenen's theme was the "religion," not 

* See Appendix A, p. 59. 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 9 

the literature, of Israel, and he is not to be blamed but 
praised for adhering to it. If it was a dry subject, it 
was not his fault. He is responsible only for its treat- 
ment. To an examination of this, we will now address 
ourselves. 

Dr. Kuenen, in the three octavo volumes before us, 
treats of the development of the "Religion of Israel" 
from the earliest period down "to the fall of the Jew- 
ish State." He does not fail of doing justice to the 
theme for want of space. Three octavo volumes, 
including over one thousand closely-printed pages, 
cannot be judged a cramped or an abbreviated discus- 
sion of the subject. As far as quantity is concerned, 
there is no ground for fault-finding. What, then, is the 
quality of the work done by the author ? 

With an honorable frankness, at the very start Dr. 
Kuenen states his "stand-point," his "sources of in- 
formation," and " the plan and division " of his history. 
"Our stand-point," he says, "is sketched in a single 
stroke, as it were, by the manner in which this work 
sees the light. It does not stand entirely alone, but is 
one of a number of monographs on 'the principal re- 
ligions.' For us, the Israelitish is one of these relig- 
ions, nothing less, but also nothing more." These 
religions may differ from each other in value, but one 
is no more a special revelation from God than another. 
Christianity belongs in the same category. All relig- 
ions claim to be revelations from God, and the claims 
of all are equally delusive. This is the author's 
" stand-point," from which he views and discusses the 
"religion of Israel."* It is not our purpose to chal- 

♦Vol. I., pp. 5-12, 27. 



I O INTRODUCTORY. 

lenge its justness, at least not in this stage of the dis- 
cussion. 

The author's "sources of information" are "the 
entire literature of Israel, so far as it originated in the 
period " of which he treats. The value of each writ- 
er's opinion and testimony must be determined by the 
age in which he lived and the authorities which he 
used. Hence " it is of the highest importance to trace 
out and determine, first of all, the age of the various 
books and of their several constituent parts, — for in- 
stance, of the different prophets and psalms." But 
the authors of the historical books of the Old Testa- 
ment, from Genesis to Esther, were not contemporaries 
with the events which they record ; and, therefore, we 
cannot receive their account of the origin and devel- 
opment of their religion, unless it agrees with the laws 
of human progress, as understood by the author. 
These histories also contain narratives of incredible 
events, miracles, — such as the passage of the Red Sea 
and the Jordan, the manna, the wandering in the wil- 
derness, the giving of the law at Sinai. All these 
events are simply impossible, and are therefore incredi- 
ble. Hence, we discover that these writers " fearlessly 
allowed themselves to be guided in their statements 
by the wants of the present and the requirements of 
the future. They considered themselves exempt from 
all responsibility." The priests and the prophets took 
opposite views, and perverted history to sustain their 
respective opinions. The narrative of the same trans- 
action in the Books of the Kings differs widely from 
that given in the Books of the Chronicles. In these 
latter and later books, the priests colored or invented 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. H 

the history to suit their ends, without regard to truth.* 
We give an illustration referred to by Dr. Kuenen as 
a type of the style of these falsifying historians : " It 
any one wishes to form an idea of the modifications 
which the materials supplied by tradition underwent 
upon being worked up afresh, let him compare together 
II. Kings xi., and II. Chronicles xxii., 10; — xxiii., 21. 
If the chronicler, under the influence of his sympathy 
for priests and Levites, could give such an entirely 
different version of the elevation of Joash to the throne 
of his fathers, which was related with perfect clearness 
in the older account, with which he was well acquainted, 
how much more likely " was it that earlier writers 
should handle the more ancient narratives in a manner 
to answer their priestly ends. (The italics are ours.) 

Such is the statement of Dr. Kuenen's chosen illus- 
tration of the partisan bias of the chronicler, and its 
influence on his work. Let us examine its value and 
by it judge the value of all such accusations. 

I. Dr. Kuenen says his " materials were supplied by 
tradition" The chronicler says that these things and 
more "are written in the story of the Book of the 
Kings," xxiv., 27; and the historian of the reign of 
Joash, in II. Kings xi., xii., says that " the rest of the 
acts of Joash and all that he did are written ... in the 
Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah." Both 
writers relied upon written documents and not upon 
"tradition."' Comment is unnecessary. 

II. Dr. Kuenen assumes that the chronicler had be- 
fore him no written documents except our Book of 
Kings, and that he "worked up" the facts there re- 

* Vol. I., pp, S-22, 24. 



12 INTRODUCTORY. 

corded as he pleased. The work which he refers to 
here and in other places is apparently a very different 
one from our Book of Kings, and was undoubtedly the 
public records which had been saved during the cap- 
tivity. But how could Dr. Kuenen say that his " mate- 
rials were supplied by tradition," when he was perfectly 
" well acquainted " with the " older account " in Kings, 
which he had "worked up " to suit his priestly ends? 

III. Dr. Kuenen accuses the writer of falsifying his- 
tory to sustain the priestly pretensions, not to say usur- 
pations, of his age, for two reasons : one, because he is 
fuller in his account of the action of the priests during 
the reign of Joash, and the other, apparently, because, 
if the chronicler's narrative is substantially correct, his, 
Dr. Kuenen's, theory of the development of the religion 
of Israel is false. We have nothing to say about the 
latter reason. Of the former, we say that the writer of 
the Kings may be in error. But there is no reason to 
suppose that both writers are not substantially correct. 
There is no direct contradiction between them. Apply- 
ing the common rule of criticism, that " what one does 
by another he does himself," there is no appearance of 
contradiction in their accounts. Jehoiada, the high- 
priest, and the priests, are represented in Kings as 
being very active in both civil and religious affairs. 
The special services which they rendered in both are 
more fully narrated by the chronicler ; but there is not 
a shadow of evidence that he was laboring under such 
an ecclesiastical bias as to lead him to falsify history, 
that he might exalt the priesthood to honor. On the 
contrary, he relates, without rebuke, how, in the great 
reformation under Hezekiah, II. Chronicles xxix., 34, 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 13 

when " the priests were too few, so that they could not 
flay all the burnt offerings, their brethren, the Levites, 
did help them till the work was ended, and until the 
other priests had sanctified themselves ; for the Levites 
were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the 
priests!' A writer whose purpose was to elevate the 
priesthood above the Levites would not have thus 
written. See also xxx., 15, 17 ; xxxv., 10-15. 

IV. Dr. Kuenen says the chronicler gives " an en- 
tirely different version of the elevation of Joash to the 
throne" from the writer of Kings. Let us note the 
facts : Jehosheba " took Joash and hid him and his 
nurse in the bed-chamber from Athaliah, so that he 
was not slain " in the massacre of the rest of the 
family ; so also .the chronicler states. He was hid six 
years; so the chronicler. And in the seventh year 
Jehoiada gathered the rulers over hundreds and other 
officers into the house of the Lord, where they took an 
oath and made a covenant, and showed them the king's 
son and crowned him, stationing a guard in different 
parts of the city and temple ; the chronicler only adds 
that in the temple as guards none but priests and 
Levites entered. When Athaliah learned what was 
done, and cried " Treason ! " she was slain ; so the 
chronicler. And Jehoiada took the king to the king's 
house, and sat him on the throne of the kingdom : the 
same in Chronicles, save that Jehoiada arraigned also 
the priests, that the services of the temple might be 
renewed, as it is "written in the law of Moses." Are 
these "entirely different versions of the elevation of 
Joash to the throne of his fathers " ? We submit 
that it would be difficult to find two accounts of the 



14 INTRODUCTORY. 

coronation of Queen Victoria more alike. We are 
curious to know what accounts Dr. Kuenen would 
call similar if these are "entirely different"* 

But it is time to return from specific criticism to a 
consideration of the main course of argument in the 
work before us ; were we to yield to the temptation 
offered, we should write a volume. 

Such being " the condition of the sources of our in- 
formation," Dr. Kuenen may well ask, " How are we to 
endeavor to arrive at historical truth" respecting the 
religion of the people ? 

The answer to this question discloses the "plan " of 
the author. It is as follows : — 

" We offer, for instance, a supposition with respect to 
the Mosaic period. On the strength of various indi- 
cations, we assume that the people of Israel and the 
man who delivered them out of their bondage in Egypt 
had reached such and such a degree of religious devel- 
opment. We proceed with our investigation, and grad- 
ually come to the centuries during which the narratives 
about Moses and his work were written down. We 
now succeed in showing that, if our conception of the 
course of historical development be the true one, the repre- 
sentation given in these narratives must necessarily have 
been formed at that time, and could have assumed no 
other shape."f 

This is frank and intelligible. The author informs 
us that he " assumes " as an historical verity a certain 
state of " religious development," and then affirms that 
if, according to his theory of the evolution of ideas and 
human progress, the condition of the people, five or ten 

*Vol. I., pp. 12-27. t Vol. I., pp. 26-32. 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 1 5 

centuries later, conforms to the demands of the theory, 
the " assumed " state of things was correct, and the 
representation of those e.irly ages given in the histor- 
ical books must have been merely the mistaken con- 
ception of the writers ; and proves that all narratives 
containing such representations of opinions must have 
been written at a later period, since no such opinions, 
according to his theory of development, could have 
been entertained by the men of the Mosaic age, nor 
long subsequent to it. In short, Dr. Kuenen has a 
theory respecting what could, and could not, have been 
believed and done in the Mosaic and following age; 
and since the historical books do not sustain that theory, 
they are ?iot ancient, they are ?iot reliable ; the writers have 
attributed opinions, laws, customs of their own times to 
the time of their great ancestor. It does not appear to 
have occurred to Dr. Kuenen that his theory may be 
wrong, and that the old histories may be substantially 
correct. Now if his theory, or assumption, or "sup- 
position " is without solid foundation in reason and 
undoubted facts, then the whole elaborate structure of 
his work, — 

" Like the baseless fabric of a vision, 
. . . shall dissolve, 
And leave not a rack behind." 

Such is the "plan" the theory, which is to determine 
the age and value of the Old Testament books and the 
opinions which were prevalent among the Israelites in 
the time of Moses, and in all subsequent times: — if a 
book contains opinions and describes customs and al- 
ludes to religious rites, which, according to Dr. Kuenerts 



1 6 INTRODUCTORY. 

theory, could not have been developed and prevalent at so 
early a period, then the writer, unwittingly or maliciously, 
states what is false ; for all historical truth or falsehood 
is to be tested by this theory. It is the Procrustean bed 
on which all statements are to be fitted, however great 
the compression or extension. 

Where, then, does the author think he finds solid 
ground on which he may stand, and whence he can 
take his departure and apply his theory of historical 
verity ? As there is almost no historical literature ex- 
tant which was composed before the captivity, 588 B.C., 
the writings of the early prophets are examined to 
learn the condition of religion and religious customs in 
Israel, 808-700 B.C. Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Zechariah, 
Micah, and Nahum are accepted as authority, and 
quoted to show what opinions were prevalent, and 
what rites were customary in the eighth century before 
Christ, the fifth or sixth century after Moses. Dr. 
Kuenen does not omit the prophet Joel on any theo- 
retical grounds, but because some writers place him in 
a later period. There is no valid reason, however, why 
the writings of Joel, as well as those of the other 
prophets named, should not be considered as good 
authority for the religious condition of this period. 

In order to understand the bearing of these quota- 
tions on Dr. Kuenen's theory, it is necessary now to 
state, in as intelligible a manner as brevity will admit, 
the order of the evolution of religious ideas, as assumed 
in this theory among men, and especially among the 
ancestors of the Israelites, and among the Israelites 
themselves. The first religious state is fetichism, pre- 
Abrahamic; then polytheism, sub-Abrahamic, down to 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL 1 7 

the return from the captivity ; then monotheism. A 
few men were monotheists so far as Israel was con- 
cerned. This people had but one God. They believed, 
however, there were other gods for other nations, and 
no more doubted their existence than they doubted the 
existence of Jahveh. Moses was one of these, and 
others succeeded him ; but they were few who believed 
in but one God for Israel. The idea of God became 
purer, however, as generations passed away, till, in the 
eighth century, in the time of Amos, very much more 
worthy and nobler views were entertained of the nature 
and character of the Supreme Being, and worthier and 
purer worship was demanded. The sacrifices of beasts 
and fruits were remanded to a secondary place, and 
human sacrifices were pronounced abhorrent to God. 
Moses wrote nothing of the Pentateuch but an abbre- 
viated form of the Ten Commandments or " Ten 
Words." A few chapters in Exodus and Leviticus may 
have been composed before settling in Canaan; but 
the Book of Deuteronomy was not composed till the 
reign of Josiah, 620 B.C., and the historical portions 
of the four other books were not written till the cap- 
tivity. Ezra and his fellow-priests drew up nearly the 
whole ritual as we now find it in Leviticus and the 
other books of the Pentateuch just before his return to 
Jerusalem from Babylon, and brought it with him, 
and introduced it, with the aid of Nehemiah and the 
priests, as a Mosaic production, and venerable with age 
and the observance of the fathers ; and the Books of 
Chronicles were written, perverting and falsifying his- 
tory, to sustain the false claim of Ezra's ritual to an- 
tiquity and the supremacy of the tribe of Levi, and the 



1 8 INTRODUCTORY. 

dignity and sacredness of the priesthood. The older 
historian of the Books of the Kings had no knowl- 
edge of any such ritual and priesthood. The prophets 
disappeared before the new order of priests, and the 
voice of the poet-preacher was stifled by the smoke of 
holocausts. 

In due time, after centuries of struggle, suffering, 
despair, and hope, the great Teacher came and an- 
nounced a spiritual worship, demanding no sacrifice 
but a devout heart, no temple but a consecrated spirit ; 
and Judaism blossomed into Christianity, and the relig- 
ion of Israel was transformed into the religion of the 
world. Such is substantially Dr. Kuenen's theory of 
the development of religious ideas in Israel, and the 
origin of the books of the Old Testament. We are 
confident that we have not omitted any important par- 
ticular or element of it. 

We now return to an examination of Dr. Kuenen's 
method of laying the foundation of his proof of this 
theory or hypothesis in the writings of the prophets, 
named on a previous page, who wrote during the eighth 
century before Christ, or five or six centuries after the 
putative time of Moses. And now let it be most dis- 
tinctly understood that the historical books are ruled 
out of this discussion for the present by Dr. Kuenen's 
own decision of their modern date and careless or un- 
scrupulous writers. He must not refer to them when 
they record something which corresponds with his the- 
ory, and ignore them or challenge them when they 
record something which opposes his theory. No doubt 
he intends to hold the scales evenly balanced, but he 
is sometimes tempted beyond what he is able to bear 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 1 9 

to appeal as authority to the very witness he has pro- 
nounced not trustworthy. Examples of this weakness 
would be given were it necessary for our purpose, but 
our space is all of it to the last letter demanded for 
our special object, namely, to show the radical defect 
and failure oi Dr. Kuenen's supposed proof of his the- 
ory respecting the origin of these books, and hence of 
the origin and development of the " Religion of Israel." 
In the very brief writings of these prophets, " mono- 
theism " is most emphatically taught, and the sin of 
worshipping idols and serving the gods of other nations 
is most emphatically rebuked ; and the severest calam- 
ities are threatened if they forsake " the law of" Jeho- 
vah ; and " captivity " as well as " drouth " and " lo- 
custs " are predicted as the portion of the nation, if 
the people obey not God, and do not observe his 
"commandments." The temple was in existence, sac- 
rifices were offered, feasts were kept, " priests " served 
at the altar, and " the law " was often appealed to as a 
rule of duty. In these brief fragments of the poetic 
addresses of the prophets, we have allusions to all the 
main features of the ritual service as described in 
Chronicles and Ezra. The sternness of the rebukes 
of these prophets, when they saw the wickedness of 
the people in making and worshipping idols, is not 
strange ; is far from being " a remarkable phenome- 
non," even when producing open " conflict " and perse- 
cution. What may be done and said without opposi- 
tion in Holland now we do not know ; but what was 
done to free speakers and writers centuries ago we 
know well enough ; and we know that in later times 
Fox and Wesley and Whitefield were persecuted as 



20 INTRODUCTORY. 

bitterly as those prophets of 800 B.C., to say nothing 
of Rogers and Cranmer, the martyrs of bloody Mary, 
and the victims of the merciless Jeffries, cruelly tor- 
tured in the blasphemed name of religion. There are 
no " causes " far to seek, or hard to understand, as 
Dr. Kuenen supposes, why these prophets were assailed 
by the law-breakers, the cruel, the false, the idol-wor- 
shippers, and idol-makers. The "conflict " is as old as 
time, and will continue till time shall be no longer. 
Yet our author infers — nay, affirms — that this " con- 
flict" and persecution could not have arisen if the 
Pentateuch had existed. 

One would suppose that Dr. Kuenen would now ex- 
amine with closest scrutiny these statements, so clear 
and explicit, and their bearing upon his theory, which 
these writers, whose veracity he does not question, 
furnish so abundantly. He does no such thing. He 
hastens to inquire into " the earlier fortune of the peo- 
ple of Israel," as if he perceived that these prophets 
furnished his theory no support. But what materials 
has he, on his own theory, to furnish him any informa- 
tion about it ? Not a line of history was written, as he 
affirms, till this period, or later ; and what was written 
then was "not historical." The writers of most of 
these historical books, called so only by way of cour- 
tesy, lived, on the theory of Dr. Kuenen, after these 
prophets, and "considered themselves exempt from all 
responsibility " as to the truth of the events which they 
narrate. If there is no reliable record of events pre- 
vious to 800 B.C., we are very much at a loss to guess 
where he gets his information. If he writes from his 
"inner consciousness" only, his history has no more 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 21 

reliable source than that of those old Jewish writers 
whom he so soundly berates for their groundless sto- 
ries. If the Books of the Kings and of Samuel are 
not reliable accounts, how can he quote them as he 
does to show the state, civil and religious, of the people 
" earlier " than the eighth century ? We stand firmly 
here. Dr. Kuenen must either reject or accept these 
historical books as being substantially reliable. If he 
accepts them, then the controversy is ended, and his 
emphatic condemnation of the untrustworthiness of 
their writers is a gross injustice. If he rejects them, 
then he has no right to appeal to them as authority in 
any case whatever. He can take which horn of the 
dilemma he chooses. He cannot be permitted to select 
here and there a story, cull out here and there a sen- 
tence, because it answers the purposes of his theory 
and confirms his " assumption," and reject all the rest. 
The references to the early history and customs of 
the people from the time of Abraham onward are so 
numerous in these prophets that Dr. Kuenen confesses 
that we should be compelled to suppose that at least 
Micah " was acquainted with those narratives " as con- 
tained in the Pentateuch, " unless appearances should 
tend to show that they were written or modified at a 
later date," — that is, later than the time of these 
prophets •* and this Dr. Kuenen believes. They were 
not written till the time of the captivity, or two hundred 
years later than the time of these prophets. What 
these prophets say, therefore, about the early past, they 
have no authority for. They only express "the idea 
which was entertained of that history in the eighth century 

*Vol. I., pp. I02, IO3. 



22 INTRODUCTORY. 

B.C." Be it so. Then it is only repeating the folly of 
the " wild ass that eateth up the east wind " to rake 
over the stories in Genesis and Exodus, which were not 
committed to writing till two centuries after this period, 
to supplement the " ideas " of the eighth century as 
given by these prophets. Our author does it, however, 
and concludes that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob "are 
not historical personages" Nor are the twelve tribes 
descendants of Jacob's twelve sons. There may be 
some truth, but not much, in the account of the emi- 
gration from Egypt, the wandering in the wilderness, 
the entrance and partial conquest of Canaan, and the 
anarchical condition from the time of Joshua to the 
coronation of Saul. But he who believes least of what 
is told is the wisest man.* 

Dr. Kuenen, however, becomes so enamoured with 
these old story-tellers that he gives us three chapters 
more upon " The Israelitish Prophets before and during 
the Eighth Century B.C.," and "The Course of Israel's 
Religious Development," and " The History of Israel's 
Religious Development before and during the Eighth 
Century B.C." Now let it be most distinctly under- 
stood that for every fact, or supposed fact, in these 
three chapters, covering two hundred and twenty-four 
pages, Dr. Kuenen is indebted to these same books 
which he affirms to have been written not only by men 
who lived from a thousand to five hundred years after 
the events described, but by men who tl considered 
themselves exempted from all responsibility " to tell 
the truth ! No statement of fantastic act in the life of 
Samson would be antecedently more incredible than 

•Vol. I., p. m et stq. 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 2$ 

this. And yet the thing has been done by a renowned 
scholar, — the pages are open before us in all their com- 
pact beauty. But if Dr. Kuenen's theory is correct, 
if his statements respecting the unhistorical character 
of these books are to be accepted, then it is the beauty 
of a harlot; for he can put no more historical truth 
into these chapters of his book than he finds in these 
books of the Old Bible ; and, if they are untrue, these 
chapters are untrue. The same fountain cannot send 
forth sweet waters and bitter, truth and lies. The logic 
of the whole matter is, that methods and places of 
worship, customs and habits of life, prevailed, accord- 
ing to these writers, down to this eighth century, in 
direct violation of the Mosaic law as recorded in the 
Pentateuch, and which would not have prevailed had 
the Mosaic law been in existence or been known by 
the people. Therefore, the Mosaic laws, so called, were 
not composed till after the eighth century B.C. ! A 
most magnificent non sequitur. As if the violation of 
a law was any evidence that the law was not on the 
statute-book ! Or, to state the matter differently, as if 
the performance of an act was proof that there was no 
law against it, or that the existence of a custom was 
proof that there was no statute forbidding it. Accord- 
ing to these " unhistorical " books of unknown author- 
ship and irresponsible composition, other men than 
priests offered sacrifices, in other places than at the 
tabernacle. Punishments were inflicted by men having 
no authority, and which were cruel and vindictive to 
the last degree. The laws of Moses, in a word, were 
not observed, and therefore they did not exist, — one of 



24 INTRODUCTORY. 

the most inconclusive inferences which could possibly 
be drawn. All history shows its fallacy. # 

Passing on from the eighth century B.C., the next 
chapter treats of " The Religion of Israel to the Fall 
of Jerusalem, in B.C. 588." The only two points of 
special interest discussed in this chapter are (1) the 
reform under Hezekiah, who overthrew the altars of 
the idols, and cut down the groves [or the asheras], 
and made a very thorough change in the administra- 
tion of the religion of the people ; and (2) the finding 
of the "Book of the Law," in the reign of Josiah, by 
Hilkiah, the priest. It is necessary to pause a moment 
to consider the value of these incidents in settling the 
age of the Pentateuch. 

Hezekiah attempted to reform the worship of the 
people, which, it is very important to note, for over a 
century had been growing grosser and grosser, like the 
ceremonies of the Romish Church during the Dark 
Ages. Idols were set up and altars erected and sacri- 
fices offered on the " high places." The prophets de- 
nounced these practices in vain. The kings were sat- 
isfied to administer the civil law ; and on grounds of 

♦It is objected repeatedly by other writers that the absence of the record of 
any enforcement of a law is sufficient proof that no such law existed. See Uni- 
tarian Review, October 1880, p. 300, passim. "Good kings did not remove 
idolatrous worship," therefore there was no law against idolatry. How much 
these good kings did toward ridding the kingdom of idolatry we do not know 
That they did not wholly succeed is all that can be inferred from the passage 
Can it not be said that we had good governors who did not shut up the liquor- 
shops, and good mayors who did not close the most popular gambling saloons ? 
Does it follow that there was no prohibitory law in Boston, because there were 
more than two thousand bars where liquor was sold? We know there was. 
There are also hundreds of vile houses in Boston which the good mayor has 
not shut up. Is there no law against them? Such reasoning would not be tol- 
erated in the lowest form of a grammar school. See pp. 46-48. 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 25 

expediency, or supposing, by some method of inter- 
pretation of their own, that idol-worship was consistent 
with the worship of Jehovah, they not only permitted 
but encouraged it, as the popes encouraged image- 
worship and the selling of indulgences. The nation 
had departed no further from the requirements of the 
Mosaic law — assuming that it was given as early as 
his time — than the Church of the sixth to the tenth 
centuries had departed from the teachings of Christ. 
But customs are not easily changed ; and, though Hez- 
ekiah appears to have been in earnest, he could not 
eradicate the religious rites and opinions which had 
been cherished and firmly rooted with increasing vigor 
for more than three generations. He did his best to 
purify their worship ; but, when he died, reaction came, 
and a return to the long established and cherished 
customs. For two generations, or during the long 
reign of Manasseh, of fifty-five years, and the brief 
reign of Amon, of two years, idolatry was practised in 
its worst forms. The restraint under Hezekiah gave 
way to unbridled license under Manasseh, as the re- 
straint of the Commonwealth gave way to the license 
of Charles II. and James II. He not only re-erected 
the " high places," but he " built altars in the house of 
the Lord, . . . and he built altars for all the hosts of 
heaven, in the two courts of the house of the Lord. 
And he made his son pass through fire, and observed 
times and used enchantments and dealt with familiar 
spirits and wizards." He set one of the abominable 
"graven images of the grove," as our translation names 
it to conceal its obscenity, "in the house of the Lord," 
in the very temple itself, — a baseness of profanation 



26 INTRODUCTORY. 

of which even Athaliah did not dream or Ahaz at- 
tempt. They appear to have reverently closed the 
temple doors, and to have erected their idols only in 
the courts. Nor is this all. "Moreover, Manasseh 
shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jeru- 
salem, from one end to the other." What horrors of 
martyrdom the reformers under Hezekiah suffered, 
these few words but dimly hint. The true prophets 
fled and concealed themselves, or were slaughtered. 
The true priests escaped as they could, and suffered 
all extremities, even to perishing with hunger. The 
reaction and persecution under Mary Tudor were not 
greater or bloodier or more merciless than those under 
Manasseh. And this prevalence of idolatry continued 
for seventy-five years, till Josiah again attempted a 
reform ; and this persecution of Hezekiah's reformers 
continued till the last voice was silenced and the last 
hand cold. 

Nothing in Dr. Kuenen's work has so awakened our 
regret, not to say our indignation in this instance, as 
his attempt to palliate the abominations and atrocities 
of Manasseh, saying that he " represented a convic- 
tion " as well as Hezekiah. The " account [of his cru- 
elties] is unworthy of credit," affirms Dr. Kuenen. 
He only did what his grandfather Ahaz did in setting 
up idols, and causing his son to pass through fire ! 
" Free from all exclusivism, Manasseh cannot well 
have become a persecutor of his own accord. If he 
took this part upon him, he was driven to it by the 
reception accorded to his measures ! " No doubt. 
Mary Tudor's measures were not accepted; and, lo, 
the stake, the rack, the red-hot iron ! Isabella's meas- 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 27 

ures were not received; and, lo, the horrors of the 
Inquisition ! We have read apologies for Judas Iscar- 
iot with considerable patience ; for the poor fellow 
saw his guilt and shame, and hung himself. But we 
have no hint that Manasseh ever relented in his work 
of blood, or was abashed in the presence of his 
" groves," or " asheras." He persecuted as long as 
a hunted victim could be found. He practised his 
licentious rites as long as subjects for their lustful 
orgies could be furnished. He stands eminent among 
the Anakims of cruelty, though he had " a conviction," 
as Mary Tudor had, as James II. had, as Torquemada 
had, — "a conviction"/ Heaven help us to escape 
" convictions " ! 

We now turn to consider the origin, character, and 
extent of the reform under Josiah. For personal rea- 
sons, probably, Amon, the son of Manasseh, after a 
brief reign of two years, was assassinated by his ser- 
vants in his own house. The people punished the assas- 
sins, and placed his son Josiah, only eight years of 
age, on the throne. Under influences which are not 
named, his counsellors appear to have administered 
civil affairs wisely, without interfering with the forms 
of religion, till, in the eighteenth year of his reign, 
while the temple was undergoing repairs, Hilkiah, the 
high-priest, informs Shaphan, the scribe, that he had 
"fowid the book of the law in the house of the Lord." 
It was read before the King, and he was so moved in 
view of the sins of the people, as revealed by this 
"book of the law," that "he rent his clothes," and 
directed that measures should be taken at once to 
obey "the book of the law." He gathered the elders 



28 INTRODUCTORY. 

of the people, and " the book " was read in their hear- 
ing, even "all the words of the book of the covenant." 
Then the King and the people "made a covenant 
before the Lord to walk after the Lord, and to keep 
his commandments and his testimonies and his stat- 
utes with all their heart and all their soul, and to per- 
form the words of this covenant that were written in 
this book." The work commences of conforming to 
the law as recorded in this book. "The high-priest 
and priests of the second order " bring out of the 
temple all the vessels of Baal, and the shameful ashera, 
"grove," burn them, and carry the ashes to Bethel. 
He displaced the " idolatrous priests who burned in- 
cense in the high places unto Baal, to the sun and to the 
moon and to the planets and to all the host of heaven. 
He brake down the houses of the Sodomites, that were 
by the house of the Lord, and defiled the high places 
and Topheth." He burned to ashes all that would 
burn, and ground to powder all that could be pulver- 
ized, of the articles used in idol-worship; and, having 
cleansed the land of idolatry, he commanded the pass- 
over to be kept as directed " in the book of this cove- 
nant." But it was too late. Josiah was killed in a 
battle with Pharaoh-Nechoh ; and under his sons the 
nation again relapsed into idolatry, and Jerusalem was 
taken, and the captivity followed. 

Now, what was this "book of the law of the Lord''' 
which aroused Josiah to attempt a radical reform in 
the religious practices of the nation? Dr. Kuenen 
says : " Moses bequeathed no book of the law to the 
tribes of Israel. Certainly, nothing more was com- 
mitted to writing by him, or in his time, than ' the ten 



ISRAEL. 29 

words,'" the ten commandments, "in their original 
form." How, we ask with significant emphasis, how 
does Dr. Kuenen know that Moses wrote these " ten 
words " ? or that they were written as early as his day ? 
Where is the proof of it? None is given, — not a line, 
not a letter.* The testimony of the "inner conscious- 
ness " cannot be taken in this case; and we challenge 
him to bring any proof that Moses wrote " the ten 
words " which will not also prove that he wrote a great 
many words.f Dr. Kuenen says that the fragmentary 
laws in existence before Josiah's time would not satisfy 
what he calls the "Mosaic party," — that is, the anti- 
idolatrous portion of the people, — and some one or 
more of them, Hilkiah or others, forged " a book of 
the law of the Lord," in the name of the old law- 
giver. " Notions about literary property were then in 
their infancy." They would have no " qualms of con- 
science " who declared they had "found " a book when 
they did not find it, but wrote it ; nor when they attrib- 
uted its authorship to Moses, though they knew they 
lied! The Mosaic party must gain their end at all 
hazards. "Now or never," — hence forgery and lying 
are justifiable. That forgery — as unblushing and more 
criminal than the forged election returns in Louisiana, 

* Some weak and inconclusive proof of a part of them is attempted, Vol. I., 
p. 283 and following. 

t A writer in the Unitarian Review, November, 1880, pp. 435, 436, says the 
ten commandments, as written on the tablets of stone, are c )t given in the 
second writing, Exodus xxxiv., as in the first, Exodus xx. The historian says 
they were. Compare Exodus xxxiv., 1, and xxxiv., 27, 28. The writer mistakes 
when he understands that the laws given in this chapter were written on the two 
tables. They were written as the other laws were. Moses was commanded to 
write these words or commands because they were "after the tenor" based 
upon the words or commands given before. There were not ten of them, no 
more, no less ; but a code of rules based upon the ten laws or commandments, 
which were written on the tables, and not here repeated. They are not said to 
le the words of the covenant, but "after the tenor" based upon them. 



30 INTRODUCTORY. 

or the Decretals — was the Book of Deuteronomy; not 
the whole of it, but Deuteronomy iv., 44 — xxvi. and 
xxviii. These chapters, no more, no less, were delib- 
erately forged for a religious purpose at this time. 
Now, what is the proof of it? Let us pick up as we 
may the alleged evidence produced by Dr. Kuenen. 

1. " The first four books of the Pentateuch are more 
recent than the seventh century before our era"; and 
therefore they cannot be, either one or all of them, the 
book " found " or forged, the latter, not the former, 
in Josiah's reign. But this is simply taking for granted 
what must be proved. No evidence, not a line, has 
yet been brought by Dr. Kuenen to show that the first 
four books of the Pentateuch were not written till after 
this period, save that laws contained in it were often 
violated, and sometimes with impunity. 

2. "Let it be further remembered that the writing 
found by Hilkiah is called the ' book of the /aw,' and 
the 'book of the covenant?" It is true that in Deuter- 
onomy iv., 44, we read, "And this is the law which 
Moses set before the children of Israel. These are 
the testimonies and statutes and judgments which 
Moses spake unto the children of Israel." And in 
chapter v., 2, 3, it is said that " the Lord our God made 
a covenant with us in Horeb." But in no place is 
Deuteronomy called "the book of the law," or "the 
book of the covenant." But we read in Exodus xxiv., 
7, that Moses took the book of the covenaiit, and read in 
the audience of the people ; and numerous sections of 
the other books of the Pentateuch are called "the 
law." The inference drawn by Dr. Kuenen, from the 
possible meaning of the phrases "the law" and "the 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 3 1 

covenant," as used in Deuteronomy, is theiefore not 
valid, and is far from proving that only the last book of 
the Pentateuch is referred to, excluding the others. 

3. " It cannot have been of any great length, if we 
may believe the statement that it was read by Shaphan, 
and then read before Josiah in one day." This would 
be true of any of the sections named "the law" and 
"the covenant," which are contained in any of the 
books. These important sections might all be read 
more easily than twenty-three chapters in Deuteronomy. 
The only possible objection to this view is found in 
one word in the history of this transaction, II. Kings 
xxiii., 2 : "And he read in their ears all the words of 
the book of the covenant," — as if the whole of the 
book, whatever the topic, was read. There are large 
sections of Deuteronomy which have no special rela- 
tion to the reforms instituted by Josiah ; and laws re- 
specting all his reforms are found in other portions of 
the Pentateuch. Certainly, Dr. Kuenen will not rest 
the proof that "the book of the law" read before Josiah 
was our present Book of Deuteronomy, on the single 
use of the word " all " by a historian who is not known, 
and who belongs to a class of writers who are said 
by himself "to consider themselves exempt from all 
responsibility" to write the truth. We however believe 
this writer was honest, and intended to tell the truth, 
and did tell it \ and that what he said is that " all " 
was read which pertained to the Being whom they wor- 
shipped, and the place and form of worship then nec- 
essary to be known, and the penalties which would 
follow disregard of this law. 

4. The final reason given by Dr. Kuenen for believ- 



32 INTRODUCTORY. 

ing that Deuteronomy is " the book of the law " found, 
forged, by Hilkiah is that the customs reformed are 
all rebuked in Deuteronomy, and the penalties threat- 
ened for transgression are there written. But all these 
threatenings and all these laws are also contained in 
other books of the Pentateuch. It is not necessary, 
therefore, to infer that the reading would be confined 
to the last of the five books. Hilkiah or Shaphan may 
have made selections from any part of " the book of 
the law" which were appropriate to the occasion. 
What book this was which Hilkiah " found " or 
forged must be determined in a very different manner 
from that which Dr. Kuenen has adopted. In the 
proper place, we shall give it the consideration which it 
demands. 

The seventh chapter on "The Israelitish Exiles in 
Babylon " contains so little which bears upon the ques- 
tion which we are discussing that we shall pass it by 
with the single remark that it is very full and able, 
giving a correct view of the condition of the exiles, 
and the influences of the peoples among whom they 
dwelt upon their religious ideas and forms. 

The eighth chapter, which describes the return from 
the captivity and "The Establishment of the Hie- 
rarchy and the Introduction of the Law," demands 
special attention ; for we are here told of the origin of 
the rest of the Pentateuch, and especially of the com- 
position and introduction of the ritual law. As the 
subject is a large one, and our space is limited, we 
must confine ourselves to those points which have 
direct reference to the origin of the Pentateuch and 
the historical books. 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. $$ 

Dr. Kuenen affirms in the strongest language * that 
"the priestly laws'* and "priestly ordinances were 
made known and imposed upon the Jewish nation ?iow 
for the first time '," by Ezra, 457 B.C. "They were not 
laws which had been long in existence, and which were 
now proclaimed afresh and accepted by the people, 
after having been forgotten for a while. No written 
ritual legislation existed in EzekieVs time" f During the 
first thirteen years after Ezra's return, he perfected the 
code which he had brought with him from Babylon, 
where he and others drew it up. It received some modi- 
fications at the hand of Nehemiah, and perhaps others ; 
and this code of laws was palmed off upon the returned 
exiles as " God's law which was given by ['the hand of] 
Moses, the servant of God" and which they bound them- 
selves by a solemn oath, under a curse, to obey. (Ne- 
hemiah x., 29.) No priest discovered the fraud ; no 
scribe, versed in the traditions, customs, and laws of 
the nation, had a suspicion that this formidable, exact- 
ing, and onerous code was a barefaced forgery, a pro- 
digious fraud ; or else they were all silent in the very 
face of an imposition upon the credulity of a long- 
suffering nation without a parallel in the history of the 

*Vol. II., p. 231. 

tDr K. maintains that Lev. xviii.-xxvi. was written by or after the time of 
Ezekiel. There is not a shadow of evidence of it. The peculiar archaisms 
which are characteristic of the rest of the book and of all the Pentateuch are 
found in this section, which are not found in the extant writings of Ezekiel, nor 
in any other writing of the Old Testament subsequent to that of the Pentateuch. 
He must have taken great pains to imitate the style of the ancient books to con- 
ceal this fraud, or some scribe must have tampered with his copy to give it the 
antique form ; and, further, he must have taken great pains in his extant proph- 
ecy to refer to this section as containing the laws given to the "fathers," and 
referring to this forged section as if given in ancient times in the "wilderness" 
(chapter xx., passim), when he knew that he wrote it himself. 



34 INTRODUCTORY. 

world. The stupidity of these people must have been 
as amazing, as incredible, as was the fraud. There 
were men and women among these exiles who were not 
idiots, and who knew whether Ezra was introducing a 
ritual and law which were new, and not in accordance 
with the " customs " of the nation before the captivity. 
There were thousands of those who returned with Ze- 
rubbabel from the Babylonian exile, whose fathers had 
worshipped in the temple which Solomon built, and 
who were familiar with the whole ritual code. Could 
their children be blinded to such a degree as not to 
know a new code so minute in its details, reaching 
even to the kind and cooking of their food ; the ma- 
terial, form, and make of their garments ; the construc- 
tion and care of their houses ; the number, amount, 
and payment of their taxes ; the rate of interest and 
collection of debts ; the manner of treating strangers 
and slaves ; the observance of the Sabbath, and the 
penalty of its desecration ? And these are but a few of 
the laws which touched their persons, their homes, and 
daily occupations. The bare statement of an hypoth- 
esis which demanded such a belief would seem to be 
its sufficient and swift confutation. Imagine all the 
men and women and children of those exiles who had 
refused to sing the songs of their dear native land by 
the rivers of Babylon, and who had mourned over the 
loss of their homes, their temple, and their worship, 
when they had returned to erect anew their altar, and 
kindle anew its fires, to have had presented for their 
acceptance such a ritual as they had never heard of ; 
such a religious administration as never before existed 
in the nation ; and yet not a priest, not a Levite, not a 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 35 

scribe, not a prophet, not a prophetess, ever hinted by 
word or line that this ritual, this code, was new ; was 
not the ritual and code of the fathers ; was not the 
manner of administration and form of worship which 
prevailed in the land before Jerusalem was destroyed 
and Judah carried captive ! The great company which 
returned with Zerubbabel had built their homes, and 
established anew the worship of their nation in the 
rebuilt temple, and according to the "customs" of the 
fathers. For over half a century, for fifty-eight years, 
after the dedication of their new temple, " the priests 
in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses," 
had conducted the services of the temple, "as it is 
written in the book of Moses"; and twenty years before 
the temple was finished, on their arrival at Jerusalem, 
Jeshua and the priests and others " builded an altar to 
the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it 
is written in the law of Moses, the man of God." They 
kept the feast of the tabernacle, " as it is written" and 
" offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according 
to the custom" They a«!so observed the " new moons, 
and all the set feasts of the Lord." This large com- 
pany, with the "high priests" and the "priests" and 
"Levites" and "singing men" and "singing women" 
and the "porters " with " the vessels of gold and of sil- 
ver," and "priests' garments " and "knives," had been 
keeping " passovers " and " all the feasts," and wor- 
shipping according to the " custom " of the fathers, "as 
written in the book of Moses," "in the law of Moses, 
the man of God," during two generations, in the un- 
doubting belief that they were honoring God and obey- 
ing his law given to their fathers. And yet not a word 



36 INTRODUCTORY. 

of astonishment or objection is spoken, no contention 
arises between these people and the company of Ezra 
when they return and he introduces his ritual and 
code which were "never before heard of " and "now for 
the first time imposed upon the Jewish nation " ! Every 
tongue is dumb, every pen is idle; and this unparal- 
leled monstrous forgery is accepted without a word of 
challenge, a shadow of suspicion, by a people which 
could boast of such writers as Amos, Isaiah, Micah, 
Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, and the Psalmist ! If so, the 
miracles of Egypt, as well as those recorded in the 
Book of the Judges, become mere commonplace affairs 
in the history of Israel. 

Monstrously incredible as this hypothesis is, Dr. 
Kuenen has his reasons for adopting it. What are 
they ? It is our duty, as reviewer of his work, to state 
and examine them. In doing this, we shall be obliged 
to adopt an order of our own, since Dr. Kuenen's rea- 
sons are spread over the whole work, and are inter- 
woven with his whole argument, and are nowhere so 
arranged in separate paragraphs and distinctly an- 
nounced as to make verbal quotations easy. We will, 
however, strive to cover his whole ground with the 
reasons which we shall name. It will be impossible to 
refer to the page on which the reasons which we shall 
state may be found, since they are implied or hinted or 
assumed through whole chapters, without a brief and 
clear enunciation. We omit, in this connection, as we 
shall have occasion to consider it hereafter, the differ- 
ence in the style of the author or authors of the Penta- 
teuch and that of Ezra and the writers of his time, 
which is to us most conclusive evidence that the Jewish 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 37 

ritual was not the work of any wr.'ter who lived after 
the captivity. 5 * 

The first reason which we will notice offered in 
support of Dr. Kuenen's theory is that no mc?ition is 
made of any such work as the Pentateuch, or any such 
ritual as it contains, in any work written before the 
captivity. The value of this reason will depend upon 
the number and character of the works thus early 
written. If very few works were written, and they 
were lyrical like the Psalms, or didactic like the Prov- 
erbs, or hortatory like many of the prophets, we should 
not expect to find formal quotations from the Penta- 
teuch, assuming its early existence, any more than we 
should expect to find formal quotations from the Gos- 
pels in our Christian hymn-books, or in such sermons 
as Channing's and Robertson's and Bartol's and Mar- 
tineau's. All that could be expected in such writings 
would be an occasional allusion, a particular expression, 
a special phraseology, which would indicate that the 
writers of these lyric and didactic and prophetic books 
were familiar with the contents of the Pentateuch, ar 
the sermons of these preachers and the hymns of these 
poets show that they are familiar with the contents of 
the Gospels. Whether we do find any such indications 
of familiarity with the contents of the Pentateuch in 
the writers before the captivity will be determined sub- 
sequently in its proper place.f 

But we are by no means willing to confine the testi- 
mony to the early origin of the Pentateuch to works 
written before the captivity. What sound reason can 

* See " Study of the Pentateuch," under " Style" page 159 of this volume. 
tSee "Study of the Pentateuch," under "Quotations," page 104 of this 
volume. 



38 INTRODUCTORY. 

be given for not accepting the testimony of those who 
wrote after the captivity to events transpiring and cus- 
toms prevalent before it, if they have good authority 
for what they say which disappeared soon after, and 
had in their hands documents which have perished ? 
None whatever. And here we must enter once more 
our most decided protest against Dr. Kuenen's whole- 
sale accusation and condemnation of the Hebrew writ- 
ers, historians, and others. There is no evidence that 
they were shamelessly destitute of veracity, "and con- 
sidered themselves exempt from all responsibility " to 
tell the truth, " and fearlessly allowed themselves to be 
guided in their statements by the wants of the present 
and the requirements of the future " ! After the events 
of the life of Samuel from 1100 B.C., the writers of 
Jewish history are exceptionally scrupulous to refer to 
their authorities. The writer of the Books of the 
Kings specifies at the close of every section where a 
full account of what he has very briefly narrated may 
be found. Bancroft and Palfrey and Parkman are not 
more scrupulous and frank in informing their readers of 
the sources of their information. He does not appear 
to think that he is writing to a set of ignoramuses who 
could be duped, nor to a party of demagogues who 
were to be flattered and sustained. Honesty and 
scholarship glow on every page. If the reader of the 
Books of the Kings is impressed with any one thing 
more deeply than another, it is with the truthfulness of 
the writer. Undoubtedly, he was sometimes mistaken 
in his interpretation of the old records on which he 
relied; but not wilfully to gain an end, but humanly as 
not omniscient. There is no reason to distrust his 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 39 

statements respecting the laws, customs, and religion 
of the Jews, if he did write four or five hundred years 
after the reign of David, and closed his history with 
the fall of Jerusalem and the captivity of Judah ; and 
we shall use his work freely and confidently when we 
have occasion to do so in this discussion. 

We turn now to a consideration of the accuracy and 
value of the narratives in the Books of the Chronicles. 
These books are made the subject of the severest 
criticism by Dr. Kuenen. He accuses the writer of 
them of very slight regard for truth ; of so coloring 
facts, and of inventing them when there are none, as 
to sustain the priestly ritual and code forged in the 
name of Moses by Ezra. Indeed, Dr. Kuenen may 
be said to believe and maintain that the Books of the 
Chronicles are substantially historical forgeries com- 
posed to give color of truth to the ritual forgeries of 
Ezra. The priests have invented a religion and forged 
a history to prove it true.* This all took place, and 
no scribe of the age, not a man of all the writers of 
the age, detected the cheat or exposed the falsifier 
of his nation's history. Mark the point. The writer 
of the Books of the Chronicles is not a blunderer, an 
ignorant pretender, an unfortunate bankrupt in author- 
ities : he is an intelligent, deliberate, persistent, and 
determined falsifier of the annals of his nation which 
were in his hands ; for this writer appeals as constantly 
to his authorities for his statements as does the writer 
of the Books of the Kings. Why, then, should Dr. 
Kuenen assume that where these historians, or rather 
annalists, differ, the writer of the Chronicles perverts 

* Vol. III., p. 70 et seq. 



40 INTRODUCTORY. 

or inverts or invents his facts ? Why is it impossible 
that the writer of the Kings may be mistaken ? Simply 
because it would spoil the whole of Dr Kuenen's 
theory; for it is past all possible question that the 
priesthood and the ritual are as old as the time of 
David, if the narratives in the Chronicles are substan- 
tially true. But Carthago delenda est. The early, es- 
pecially the Mosaic origin of the priesthood and ritual 
must be false : therefore, every historian asserting its 
antiquity is thereby shown to be a liar or an ignoramus ! 
That the writer of the Chronicles is an antiquarian, 
and often busies himself about very small matters, is 
true. That he is given to genealogies is also true. 
That he writes an ecclesiastical and not a civil history 
is also true. But this does not prove that he delib- 
erately lied, and said that things were as he knew they 
were not. Neal's History of the Puritans differs as 
much from Hume's history of the same period as the 
Chronicles differ from the Kings ; and yet Neal is as 
reliable an historian as Hume. He dwells upon other 
topics and enlarges upon them, and is very diffuse upon 
some points which Hume omits or only touches. So we 
find it in the Chronicles. The writer lingers lovingly 
around topics which the writer of the Kings passes 
over very lightly or wholly omits, and sometimes they 
contradict each other. But this is no proof that either 
of them was a liar. Their authorities may have dif- 
fered. The figures given in the Chronicles and in the 
other books are obviously unreliable, for some reason 
which is not yet explained. The blunders of copyists 
do not satisfactorily account for all of them. But 
these obvious mistakes do not affect in the slightest 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 41 

degree the historical accuracy of the statements respect- 
ing the religious usages and legal ceremonies of the 
period of which the work is a fragmentary history, — 
indeed, only the briefest annals. The fact of a battle 
having been fought is not discredited because the 
number of killed and wounded is incorrect, and the 
name of the commander and the day of the fight are 
obviously misstated. Genealogies may be erroneous, 
and yet the events recorded may be substantially cor- 
rect. It would be a miracle, indeed, if the writer of 
the Chronicles had made no mistakes in the names 
of his long lists of ancient families ; and a still greater 
one if the copyists of them for centuries had accu- 
rately, letter for letter, reproduced the original. We 
have tried our hand at both, and do not wish to con- 
demn ourselves by accusing the writer of the Chron- 
icles of being either an idiot or a knave because of the 
mistakes which are found in his work. There is open 
before me, as I write, the first volume of Savage's Gene- 
alogy of New England, a " very miracle of accuracy," 
and yet there are twenty octavo pages of "additions and 
corrections " at the end of it. How critics of the school 
of Dr. Kuenen would revel in a volume like this ! 

After the most patient and long examination of these 
books, we find nothing which proves or even indicates 
that their writer falsified his documents and invented 
incidents. As far as he writes the history of his nation, 
he writes as a priest would naturally write — relig- 
iously. He describes the acts of the priesthood much 
more fully than those of the civil magistrates. He 
does not bring his history down further than the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. The books close with the issue 



42 INTRODUCTORY. 

of the decree by Cyrus for the return of the captives, 
536 B.C. The writer probably composed his work 
after the return of Nehemiah, and compiled from docu- 
ments the so-called Books of Ezra and Nehemiah as a 
fitting appendix to his own work. We submit that 
there is no valid reason for supposing, with Dr. Kuenen 
and others, that the Books of Chronicles were not writ- 
ten as early as we have stated, simply because two gen- 
ealogies of a few names are carried down to 250 B.C. 
These names might well have been added by a later 
hand. It may be assumed, therefore, with large meas- 
ure of assurance, that all the historical books included 
in our Bible, as we now have them, were composed 
before 400 B.C., and that they are substantially reliable 
in their account of the affairs of the nation, both civil 
and ecclesiastical ; that there is no evidence which 
would be admitted for a moment in any court of jus- 
tice that these writers were arrant knaves, forging laws 
and falsifying history ; that an indictment based upon 
such evidence as is adduced against the integrity and 
ability of these writers would be quashed by any mod- 
ern court, or a nol. pros, would be entered by any pros- 
ecuting attorney. 

A word must be said respecting the writings which 
treat of the affairs of the nation from the time of 
Moses to that of David, a period, according to Dr. 
Kuenen, of about three hundred years in round num- 
bers, — 1300 — 1000 B.C. The Book of Joshua gives 
an account of the conquest and division of the land of 
Canaan among the tribes, and covers a period of about 
thirty years. If we can rely upon a statement in chap. 
xvi., 10, "The Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 43 

[in Gezer] unto this day," the book must have been 
written before the end of Solomon's reign, for we lead, 
in I. Kings ix., 16, that Pharaoh took Gezer, burned it 
with fire, slew the Canaanites, and gave it as a present 
to his daughter, Solomon's wife. This passage would 
be of little value in overcoming opposing evidence, were 
there any ; but there is none of any weight. The fre- 
quent use of the phrase "unto this day" implies some 
time after the events described, but is very indefinite. 
This Book of Joshua may have been written as early as 
the reign of Saul. There is no internal evidence against 
such a date for its compilation. Its subject is of the 
conquest, the battles, and the location of the tribes upon 
their portions of the land. No reasonable critic would 
expect to find much, if anything, which would treat of 
their religious manners and customs. What there is 
said about them we shall call attention to in the proper 
place.* If there were no allusion to anything of the 
kind, it would not surprise us, nor should we draw the 
astounding inference that they were a people without 
a religion and without a ritual. 

The Book of Judges is a very composite work ; but if 
we may rely upon a statement, chap, i., 21, that "the 
Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jeru- 
salem unto this day," the book must have been written 
before the conclusion of David's reign ; for we read in 
II. Samuel, v., 6-8, that David drove the Jebusites 
out of Jerusalem, and took the stronghold of Zion, and 
David dwelt in it. Another passage in one of the ap- 
pendixes of the book, chap, xviii., 30, may indicate 

•See "Study of the Pentateuch," under "Quotations *'rom Joshua" page 
143 of this voluin§. 



44 INTRODUCTORY. 

that this portion was not written till two or three centu- 
ries afterward; for certain persons are said to have 
served as priests to the tribe of Dan "until the day of 
the captivity of the land," referring, apparently, to the 
deportation of the ten tribes of Shalmaneser and Esar- 
haddon, 721 B.C. As an apology for the lawlessness 
and insecurity of those days the writer of the appen- 
dixes especially calls attention to the fact that there was 
"no king in Israel in those days" (xviii., 1, and else- 
where). The book was possibly written as illustrative 
of the importance of a closer union of the tribes and 
of a stronger central government, or, more probably, 
it was the work of a curiosity hunter, who gathered the 
traditions of the most wonderful events which had hap- 
pened during a period of civil and foreign wars, if bor- 
der ravages and riotous outbreaks can be called wars, 
like the feuds of the Scottish clans, or the fights of 
Miles Standish and Captain Church with the Indians. 
The writer was an Israelitish Cotton Mather, and his 
book of the wonders of New England, Thaumaturgus, 
is the Puritan Book of Judges. No reasonable critic 
would expect to find much respecting religious affairs in 
such a work, covering three or four centuries in sixteen 
chapters, and devoting four of them to the exploits of 
Samson, the Israelitish Morrissey (we mean no disre- 
spect to either champion : we make our apology to the 
shades of both). Whatever light the book will throw 
upon the subject we shall produce in due time.* We 
have said enough to show that Dr. Kuenen's argument, 
drawn from the sile?ice of the book, is very weak, if not 
entirely destitute of force. 

•See "Study of the Pentateuch," under "Quotations from Judges" page 
141 of this volume. 



KUENEN S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 45 

The historical notices contained in I. Samuel, preced- 
ing the anointing of David, will require but a word of 
consideration. They were probably written by some 
earlier writer than the author of the Books of the Kings, 
and he may have continued the history to near the close 
of David's reign. The style is more diffuse than that 
of the author of Kings, and is freer from Aramaean 
or Chaldee words. What records he used, if any, he 
does not inform us; and the amount of credit which 
we give to his narrative will depend upon the probabil- 
ity of the events occurring under the circumstances de- 
scribed. Very strange things happen sometimes ; and 
this rule, therefore, must be applied with great caution 
and modesty. Very little, if anything, respecting eccle- 
siastical affairs would be likely to be found in a brief 
description of the transition of the people from a state 
of anarchy and tribal rivalship and independence to the 
restraints of a monarchy and the authority of a central 
government. And what little there should be found 
would be such imperfect hints or such dissevered state- 
ments as would aid but little in forming a correct opin- 
ion of their religious rites and hierarchy. And if there 
were a ritual and a priesthood and an altar prescribed, 
it would be impossible in such stormy times to enforce 
or enjoy its observance, " every man for himself " doing 
what was right in his own eyes \ and, as necessity knows 
no law, religious rites and ceremonies would be regarded 
or disregarded as circumstances compelled or permitted. 
If the appointed altar could not be reached, the sacri- 
fice would be offered elsewhere ; if the appointed priest 
could not be found, the next most worthy person would 
officiate ; if the day appointed could not be observed, 



46 INTRODUCTORY. 

the next day most appropriate would be chosen. Laws 
would not be enforced, criminals would escape, crimes 
would be winked at. Whether any evidence whatever 
exists in these narratives of the existence of any ritual 
or code of forms of worship will be the subject of fut- 
ure examination.* It certainly would not disappoint a 
student of history to find little or nothing on the sub- 
ject. He certainly would not decide categorically, as 
Dr. Kuenen has done, that there was no such ecclesias- 
tical polity in existence, because at this particular period 
of anarchy it was in abeyance, or because in these 
scraps of civil history and accounts of insurrections 
it was not specially mentioned. 

On the contrary, Dr. Kuenen maintains that the rit- 
ual contained in the Pentateuch could not have been in 
existence during this period, because no direct reference 
is made to it by these writers, and because so much was 
done which was in violation of it. But who does not know 
that laws are violated, customs disregarded, rites neg- 
lected? Who does not know that the Thirty-nine Arti- 
cles of the Episcopal Church are Calvinistic, and that 
its preaching is largely Arminian ? Was the ritual, so 
to speak, of the gospel less ignored by the Church 600 
— 1000 A.D. than the ritual of the Pentateuch from 
Joshua to Hezekiah, if you please, six centuries ? The 
inference from comparative silence and disregard is not 
a safe nor a sound one, where that silence can be ex- 
plained and that disregard accounted for, as can easily 
and satisfactorily be done during the period before us. 
The narratives relate almost exclusively to civil affairs, 

*See "Study of the Pentateuch," under " Quotations from Samuel," page 
136 of this volume. 



47 

and, for the most part, in the briefest manner ; and the 
people were governed by passions and appetites made 
greedy and lawless by centuries of slavery and suffer- 
ing in the midst of the grossest idolatry, and therefore 
spurned the restraints of law and the denial of idol- 
worship. A people cannot be lifted in an hour or a cen- 
tury from ignorance, brutality, and idolatry to knowl- 
edge, refinement, and spiritual worship; and well may 
it have taken a millennium of struggle and failure and 
worshipping of asheras and Baals before these degraded 
slaves could accept a "spiritual monotheism," and burn 
their asheras, and understand that even their own ritual 
was an offence to God unless the heart was pure and 
the hands clean which observed it. We will quote, as 
we can, such authority as De Wette in support of our 
position : " The observance or non-observance of par- 
ticular laws, the appearance or non-appearance of par- 
ticular legal institutions, in a certain period, can prove 
nothing, either fcr or against the existence of a written 
law book." * We submit that the silence of these books 
respecting the existence and observance of the Mosaic 
ritual, and the few accounts of religious observances 
not conforming to it, are no valid proof that it did not 
exist, especially as against the later tradition of the na- 
tion. We shall in due time show that perfect silence 
does not pervade these books. We are now only deal- 
ing with Dr. Kuenen's argument. 

Respecting the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah to 
which allusion has just been made, a few words must 
be said ; for in these very brief fragments of the con- 
dition of the Israelites for about a century, 537 — 434 

♦Parker's De Wette, § 16a, a. 



48 INTRODUCTORY. 

B.C., after their return from captivity, we may find 
some evidence of Dr. Kuenen's remarkable theory. 
He thinks he does. Let us examine the books, and 
see what it is worth, if indeed there is any. 

It is evident that the best-conditioned and most 
religious of the captives, those to whom "Jerusalem 
was their chief joy," would undertake the long desert 
journey, and attempt to rebuild the city and temple, 
and re-establish the services of the fathers. They were 
among the most intelligent and devoted of their race, 
and would be most solicitous to establish in its purity 
the worship of the fathers, and to render perfect obedi- 
ence to those laws whose violation had been visited ^y 
the destruction of their city and the captivity of its 
citizens. The first company which went up under the 
lead of Zerubbabel as civil governor or king, and of 
Jeshua as high-priest and head of religious affairs, 
were accompanied by all the servants serving in the 
old temple worship, and carried back the vessels which 
Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple and carried 
to Babylon. There were about fifty thousand souls, — 
men, women, and children. On arriving at Jerusalem, 
they immediately erected an altar, and at once com- 
menced worship in accordance with the custom of the 
fathers, offering sacrifices "as it is written in the law of 
Moses, the man of God" They either had with them a 
written ritual, or they knew there was one which they 
remembered, and which they observed. They also 
arranged their singers after " the ordinance of David, 
King of Israel" showing by this act also strict regard to 
the customs of the fathers. How Dr. Kuenen can say 
that they did not sing, but only "hoarsely shouted," can- 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 49 

not be reconciled with Ezra iii., n, which says, "And 
they, the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the 
Levites, the sons of Asaph, with their cymbals, sung to- 
gether by course in praising and giving thanks unto the 
Lord ; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for- 
ever toward Israel "• and so thrilled were the multitude, 
as they heard again the old temple anthems, that they 
" shouted with a great shout, and the noise was heard 
afar off." There is not a shadow of evidence but that 
all this ritual service was familiar to them, and that it 
was observed as it was "written in the law of Moses, 
and after the ordinance of David." Having finished 
their temple, after twenty years' hindrance and hard 
labor, it was dedicated by the sacrifice of "bullocks and 
lambs and he-goats ; by the priests in their divisions, 
and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, 
. . . as it is written in the book of Moses" They kept 
" the passover and the feast of unleavened bread." 
They also "kept the feast of tabernacles, as it is 
written ; according to the custom, daily burnt offerings " 
were offered. There is not the slightest hint that the 
temple service was not continued for fifty-eight years, 
till Ezra and his company arrived, without intermission, 
and in accordance with the "custom" of the fathers, 
and as "it was written in the book of Moses." 

Did Ezra introduce any change ? Did he make 
"known and impose upon the Jewish nation priestly 
ordinances, ?iow for the first time" commanded? Were 
rites now introduced of which Zerubbabel and Jeshua, 
the king and high-priest, and these devoted exiles 
knew nothi?ig, as Dr. Kuenen affirms?* Let us read 

•Vol. II., p. 231. 



50 INtRODUCtORV. 

what the fragments of history preserved in the Book 
of Ezra tell us on this subject. Ezra " was a ready 
scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel 
had given" (Ezra vii., 6) ; and he was a priest, great- 
grandson of Hilkiah, who found the "book of the law" 
in the reign of Josiah, if the genealogy is correct ; and 
" Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the 
Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and 
judgments." After a few days, " the princes," who 
apparently had succeeded Zerubbabel in the govern- 
ment, complained to Ezra, who came with authority 
from the Persian King, that the people had intermar- 
ried, co?itrary to the law, with the neighboring people. 
Ezra at once set about a reform, and a covenant was 
made to put away their unlawful wives. " And let it 
be done," they said, "according to the law." "Some 
of these wives had children," not all. The whole 
number of guilty persons was one hundred and thir- 
teen only, out of a population of over fifty thou- 
sand. Not a great number, certainly, if we consider 
the condition of the people and the strength of the 
temptation. This act of Ezra is founded upon no new 
interpretation of " the law written by Moses," which had 
been the law of the nation from the beginning ; much 
less was it a new law of Ezra's. 

Nehemiah now visits Jerusalem. In his prayer for 
guidance before he left the palace in Shushan, he con- 
fesses that "we have not kept the commandments, nor 
the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandest 
thy servant Moses," as if he knew no code but the old 
code of the fathers, — the code which the returned 
people had used for three generations, " as writtefi in 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 5 1 

the book of the law of Moses." Complaint was made to 
Nehemiah that the poor were oppressed by the " usury " 
demanded, and some of them had lost their homes by 
the unlawful and cruel exaction of creditors. Nehe- 
miah was " angry, and rebuked the nobles and the 
rulers, and directed them to leave off this usury and to 
restore their olive yards and houses." And they prom- 
ised under oath to do so. After some years, Ezra again 
appears upon the stage as a teacher of the law. The 
people felt their need of fuller instruction. He used 
for this purpose " the book of the law of Moses, which 
the Lord had commanded for Israel." The same book 
evidently which Zerubbabel had used seventy years 
before, and of which Nehemiah spoke in his prayer. 
This old " book of the law " Ezra read and explained 
to the people. The devout wept when they learned 
how they had sinned. The direction to dwell in 
"booths" in the seventh month seems to have been 
new to them, though they had kept the " feast of the 
tabernacles " since their return. 

A farther separation takes place from "strangers." 
In the ninth chapter, a synopsis of the history of the 
people is given as recorded in the Pentateuch, showing 
that the "law "which was read was supposed to have 
had its origin at that time ; and the covenant of the 
fathers is renewed by the children, " to walk in God's 
law, which was given by Moses, the servant of God, and 
to observe and do all the commandments of the 
Lord, . . . and not to give our daughters unto the 
people of the land, nor take their daughters for our 
sons." And they promise to contribute to the support 
of the Levites " as it is written in the law." All this is 



52 INTRODUCTORY. 

in the Pentateuch, and is not spoken of as anything 
new. A selection of one man in ten is made by lot to 
dwell in Jerusalem. This is new; but it has nothing 
to do with the ritual. They further "read in the book of 
Moses that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not 
come into the congregation of God forever." They 
therefore "separated from Israel all the mixed multi- 
tude." Nehemiah, also, reformed the acts and labors 
of the people on the Sabbath, to conform to the 
"custom" of the fathers. This is all. There is not 
the slightest shade of evidence that Ezra introduced 
an entire new code of laws, never before known, but 
the contrary. A few new arrangements are made to 
meet the new condition, in which the people find them- 
selves ; but there is not a hint that anything new to 
which they were not accustomed, save in three or four 
instances at the most, and these unimportant, was 
added to "the book of the law given by Moses." It is 
incredible that no breath of opposition should have 
been felt against this code, if it had not been what it 
claimed to be, " the law given by Moses." It is incredi- 
ble, if there had been any opposition on this ground, 
that no hint of it, nor the slightest trace of it, should 
be found in these accounts of the reorganization of 
the national worship. The very slight changes in a 
few forms, which changed circumstances compelled, by 
no means furnish proof or justify the suspicion that 
the whole post-captivity code was the invention of 
priests for selfish purposes, with Ezra at their head ; 
and that he had the hardihood to proclaim to the 
people that it was the very " law given by Moses," and 
" written " by him. and observed by their fathers, and 



53 

whose violation, at last, was ihe cause of their captivity 
and renewed obedience to which would now make them 
prosperous ; and that the people were so stupid as not 
to detect the fraud and expose the deceivers, and visit 
them with swiftest and severest punishment ; or, if 
they did, that all record of this detection, opposition, 
and punishment, should have been lost by accident, 
or erased by design, from both history and prophecy. 
That the historical books contain no evidence of such a 
ritual-forgery palmed off upon the returned exiles, we 
have already fully shown. Nay, more : we have shown 
that every fragment of these annals, every shred of the 
story, informs us that this " law " was the old law, and 
that this ritual was the ritual of the fathers. We turn 
now to examine the teachings of the prophets during 
this period, to see whether Dr. Kuenen's appeal to 
them in support of his theory is of any more value 
than his appeal to history. Unless we utterly mistake, 
this support will also prove to be a broken reed which 
will pierce him through who leans upon it. 

(i) Dr. Kuenen says " that when Ezekiel, in the 
year 572 B.C., wrote his description of the new Israel- 
itish State (chaps, xl. — xlviii.), no written regulations 
for religious worship, no complete priestly legislation, 
yet existed." And he says further, "that no evident 
trace of these laws, or of the spirit which they breathe, 
is to be found in the prophecies which saw the light 
toward the end of the captivity, — about 538 B.C.* 

Ezekiel we will notice first, as being probably the 
earliest of the group, then the later Isaiah and Zecha- 
riah, and then Haggai and Malachi. Ezekiel was not 

•Vol. II., p. 153. 



54 INTRODUCTORY. 

of the company carried to Babylon. He was a dweller 
on the remote river Chebar. The description which he 
gives (chaps, xl. — xlviii.) of the division of the land 
among the returned exiles, whenever they should return, 
and of the temple they would build, is purely ideal, and 
as impracticable, should an attempt be made to make 
it real, as the throne or chariot of the Deity which 
he describes in chapter i. is impracticable. This Dr. 
Kuenen admits apparently, but he will not admit that 
Ezekiel would have given play to his imagination in 
describing the " ritual " of his ideal temple. Why not ? 
Was the sacrifice more sacred than the altar? Was 
the priest's attire more holy than the " holy of holies " ? 
Why, then, should the prophet restrain his pen in de- 
scribing the " snuffers " and the " snuffer-trays " and 
the li tongs "and the robes, when he had not shrunk 
from describing ideally the altar and the holy place? 
The presumption is that he would not. "Why did he 
go into these minute descriptions of the ritual, if he 
had the Pentateuch? Why did he not content himself 
with a simple reference to the Mosaic laws?" asks 
Dr. Kuenen. If Ezekiel was here, we have no doubt 
he would reply, Because I was writing a poem, and 
wished to fill out my ideal state and temple and ritual 
in every particular. Besides, Ezekiel clings close to 
the forms and substance contained in the Pentateuch 
which he idealizes in his poem. Dr. Kuenen says "he 
was not acquainted with the whole of the Mosaic law. 
Deuteronomy and the still older book of the covenant 
are presupposed by him throughout, but nothing be- 
yond these collections." Now the fact is this: by a 
careful collation of the passages and references which 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 55 

are found in Ezekiel, nearly the whole ritual as it is con- 
tained in the Pentateuch could be obtained. Ezekiel 
uses the whole of the ritual as it stands in the Penta- 
teuch; that is, all which his work demanded. Could 
space be given, we would prove it by an examination of 
the passages quoted. It must suffice, however, to say 
that Ezekiel shows himself to be perfectly familiar 
with the "law of Moses" as recorded in the Penta- 
teuch, writing in a distant part of the country, one 
hundred and fourteen years before Ezra went up to 
Jerusalem, and thirty-six years before the great migra- 
tion under Zerubbabel, who had regard in offering sac- 
rifices to what "was written in the law of Moses, the 
man of God," and who arranged the courses of the 
priests "as it is written in the book of Moses." * 

(2) We turn to examine the support furnished to 
Dr. Kuenen's theory by the later, or "Deutero," Isaiah. 
This writer "lays special stress upon JahveWs one- 
ness" ; he expresses most significantly his contempt 
of false gods ; he is a strong " monotheist." There is 
not a passage which implies the non-existence of the 
ritual law or of the Pentateuch, but much to the con- 
trary. He speaks of the worthlessness of the ritual 
unless the heart is in its observance ; but this is evi- 
dence for the existence of the ritual, and not proof 
that it did not exist. As we shall have occasion to 
recur to this writer again before we finish this discus- 
sion, we waive farther examination of his work till 
then, having said sufficient to show that Dr. Kuenen's 
inference is unfounded. t 

•For further proof, see " Study of the Pentateuch," under "Ezakiel? p. 105. 
t See "Study of the Peatateuch,'" under " Isaiah.," p. 112. 



56 INTRODUCTORY. 

(3) But a word is necessary upon the writings of 
the later Zechariah. He was a contemporary of Zerub- 
babel, and the numerous visions which he describes 
assume the existence of the ritual, though no direct 
reference is made to it. Indeed, Dr. Kuenen does not 
appear to place much reliance upon his silence as valid 
evidence that the ritual was not in existence, and re- 
garded as far as the circumstances would allow. 

(4) The prophet Haggai, in the brief fragment of 
only two chapters of his writings which have come 
down to us, uses the language of the Pentateuch, and 
speaks of "the law," as respecting things "clean and 
unclean." Dr. Kuenen infers from chap, ii., 11, be- 
cause the prophet directs the people to inquire " con- 
cerning the law" of the priests, that there were no 
"enactments of the written law": "only a priestly 
tradition existed." As if, because one was referred to 
the lawyer when he inquired after the "law" on a cer- 
tain subject, we should infer that there was no statute, 
written law, but only the tradition of the bar. It so 
happens that the very point inquired about is stated 
and decided in Numbers xix., n. Haggai furnishes 
no support to Dr. Kuenen's theory. 

(5) The brief prophecy of Malachi, who was a 
contemporary of Nehemiah, is thought by Dr. Kuenen 
to give support to his theory, because he shows that 
"Ezra and Nehemiah in their attempt at reform met 
with strong opposition." The people violated the law 
in various ways, and some of them despised Jahveh's 
name. But this " law " which Malachi denounces the 
people for disregarding and violating is no forgery of 
the priesthood and Ezra, no new ritual palmed off 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 57 

upon the nation by a conspiring hierarchy, Nehemiah 
assenting and abetting, — it was none other than "the 
law of Moses," the servant of Jehovah, which God 
" co7nma?ided him in Horeb for all Israel." If Malachi 
reproved the people, it was for transgressing the " law 
as it was written by Moses " / and, if the people opposed 
Ezra and Nehemiah, it was because they enforced 
against evil-doers "the law as written by Moses" and 
not a fraudulent code of Ezra's. There is not a 
shadow of evidence that any opposition arose against 
the administration of these men because they intro- 
duced " new laws never before heard of " ; but all the 
evidence that exists of the opposition itself as well as 
of its cause implies or affirms that it originated in the 
enforcement of laws whose violation was the cause of 
their captivity, and whose origin was in the ancient 
days, "in Horeb" and whose author "was Moses, the 
man of God" 

The prophetical writings of this period not only give 
no countenance to Dr. Kuenen's theory, but they op- 
pose it in letter as well as in spirit. 

We have now examined the main reasons adduced 
by Dr. Kuenen in support of his hypotheses of the 
origin of the Pentateuch, as they are less frequently 
stated than implied in these volumes. To discuss every 
point affirmed or suggested, to challenge every state- 
ment which is doubtful or incorrect, to expose every 
fallacious inference from conceded facts, would de- 
mand as many volumes as the original work. We have 
omitted nothing vital to his argument.* 

See Appendix B, page 66. 



58 INTRODUCTORY. 

Thus far in the discussion, we have been laboring at 
a disadvantage. We have been proving a negative. 
We have been showing that the arguments adduced by 
Dr. Kuenen are not valid to sustain his theory of the 
late and forged composition of the Pentateuch. The 
positive argument for its antiquity and substantial gen- 
uineness does not appear. Dr. Kuenen's argument in 
support of his theory may be confuted, and yet his 
theory may be correct. We propose, therefore, to dis- 
cuss the question positively and affirmatively, confuting 
his theory indirectly by an examination into the age 
and authorship of the so-called Books of Moses di- 
rectly and critically, as we have confuted his arguments 
in support of it by testing their logical and historical 
value. We gird ourselves to the work in the assurance 
that the antiquity of the Pentateuch can be vindicated, 
and that the Mosaic origin of most of its contents can 
be established. 



APPENDIX A.* 

In The Bible for Learners, by Dr. H. Oort, Professor 
of Oriental Languages, etc., Amsterdam, and Dr. T. 
Hooykaas, pastor at Rotterdam, with the assistance of 
Dr. A. Kuenen, Professor of Theology at Leiden, there 
are abundant specimens of these " flimsiest specula- 
tions." I quote a few to justify to the reader the 
use of such language respecting the works of this 
school of critics. 

"The tabernacle," Dr. Oort says, "never really ex- 
isted, except in the imagination of the writer," who lived 
after the captivity. This writer must have been infatu- 
ated with this creation of his imagination, of " rams' 
skins dyed red," and "badger skins," and "fine-twined 
linen," and "loops and couplings, blue upon the edge, 
and taches and curtains of goats' hair, and boards of 
shittim wood, and two tenons on one board, and forty 
sockets of silver, two sockets under one board, and bars 
of shittim wood, five bars for the boards of the taber- 
nacle on the one side, and five bars for the boards of 
the tabernacle on the other side, and the middle bar in 
the midst of the boards shall reach from end to end," 
etc., — must have been infatuated, indeed, for he repeats 
the wearisome, dry details in the following chapters, 
which one has hardly patience to read once. 

The "representation of the camp of the Israelites," 
as given in the Book of Numbers, we are told " the writer 

* See page 8. 



60 INTRODUCTORY. 

had invented and worked out himself." No truth is in 
it. We must class it with the historical "lies," for there 
is no doubt about the writer's intending that his readers 
should believe it was a true description of the work of 
Moses. 

Dr. Oort tells " learners " that " the prophet Malachi 
[420-450 B.C.] is the first to use the expression Maw 
of Moses.' " Now, the title is used I. Kings ii., 3, and 
II. Kings xxiii., 25, books acknowledged by such critics 
as De Wette and Davidson to have been written about 
550 B.C. And the title is also used by the writer of 
the Book of Joshua, placed by the same critics about 
650 B.C., or two centuries earlier than Dr. Oort admits 
that the title was used. Dr. Oort tells " learners " that 
" the very name given to . . . the Mount of Sinai signi- 
fies the moon-god." We do not say that some modern 
critics are moon-struck, but the moon has as much in- 
fluence on their criticism as it has on the meteorology 
of the rustic. Gesenius (Hebrew Thesaurus, ad verb?) 
says Sinai signifies " lutum" "mire " ! Again, Dr. Oort 
tells " learners " that " the very name of the hero himself 
[Samson] signifies ' sun-god.' " Gesenius says it signi- 
fies "sunlike." These assertions need no comment. 
They admonish " learners " to choose judicious teachers, 
and to beware of disregarding truth, as the Hebrew 
writers are said to have done. 

Dr. Oort seems disposed, at times, to give the worst 
interpretation possible to popular phraseology. For 
example, he says the proverb, as used in Ecclesiastes, 
" A living dog is better than a dead lion," means, "Life, 
though branded with infamy, is preferable to the most 
honorable of deaths " ! The real meaning of the pro- 



6i 

verb is, while there is life there is capacity, activity, 
hope of change from misfortune and sorrow; but when 
dead we are good for nothing, can do nothing, can hope 
for nothing. " Infamy " is not said to be " preferable to 
death." So base a sentiment could not be found among 
the Ojibways. 

We will take one of Dr. Oort's myths, and learn his 
style of interpretation. Solar myths are fashionable now 
among the critics ; and the story of Samson opens a 
rich field for fancy to riot in, as Dr. Oort in his chapter 
on this Hebrew athlete illustrates. He opens his criti- 
cism with a reference to Osiris and Horos and Typhon 
andHerakles and Balder and Loki, original solar myths ; 
and, as the "very name " of the hero " Samson " signi- 
fies " sun-god," the reader is admonished in the outset 
of the solar myth to be narrated. A rhetorical descrip- 
tion, in his own language, is given of the interview of 
the angel and Manoah, the father of Samson. He then 
interprets : " Samson had long hair. These long hairs 
are rays of the sun. The angel who rises up in the 
flame of Manoah's sacrifice signifies the glow of the 
dawn that blazes against the heavens, and heralds the 
approach of the sun who brings to the world fresh life." 
This is rich, but there is richer in store. Dr. Oort gives 
a glowing description of Samson's exploits, "killing the 
lion," "getting honey from the carcass," and his riddle 
about it. A very simple thing for a fellow like Samson 
to do. Now for the mythical interpretation. The " lion" 
is a "sign in the zodiac." "Samson rends the lion; 
that is to say, the sun passes through the constellation 
of that name." ..." How did sweet food, honey, pro- 
ceed from the strong and ravenous lion ?"..." When 



62 INTRODUCTORY. 

the sun passes through the lion, the bees make their 
combs ; and, when he leaves it, the honey is ready." Is 
not this richer? Instead of saying, what was not at all 
improbable, that a swarm of bees had made honey in 
the hollow, bone-covered portion of the fleshless re- 
mains of the slain beast, we are directed to the constel- 
lations for an answer to the riddle. It is no wonder 
that the Philistines did not guess the riddle, and it is a 
wonder that Samson was such a fool as to think they 
did when they did not ; for they only thought of the 
real beast : they had no zodiacal signs in mind. 

Now for the story of the jackals (foxes), tied " tail 
to tail, with a burning torch between them," and sent 
among the Philistines' wheat all ready to harvest, which 
so provoked them that they followed him to Lehi, where 
he was delivered up by his friends, who feared the ven- 
geance of the Philistines, bound with two new ropes. 
But, when the Philistines shouted and came upon him, 
he snapped the ropes, and seized the jaw-bone of an 
ass, and slew them by the thousand ; and they fled ; 
and, when he was thirsty, he cried to Yahweh, and 
; ' God split the hollow of the jaw-bone, and watei 
flowed out from it to drink." One word of criticism 
before proceeding to give the mythical interpretation 
of this exploit. The water did not flow from the 
hollow in the jaw-bone of the ass, used by Samson in 
beating off the Philistines, but from a hollow, a spring, 
in Lehi, the place where the squabble was. Now, the 
Hebrew word Lehi signifies "jaw"; and Dr. Oort 
thinks the Lehi where the spring of water was was 
the jaw-bone of the ass, and not the place Lehi. Our 
translators made a mistake in translating the name: 



63 

"But God clave a hollow place that was in the jaw," 
when they should have said, " a hollow place that was 
in Lehi." There was a spring of water in that place, 
Lehi, which Samson found and drank from. This is all. 

But it is time to give Dr. Oort's mythical interpreta- 
tion. In " the reddish-brown jackals, with torches be- 
tween their tails, we easily recognize the lurid thunder- 
clouds, from the projecting points [tails?] of which 
lightning flashes seem to dart." "When he has tri- 
umphed over his foes, the sun-god no longer uses the 
thunder-cloud as a weapon, but makes the rain pour 
out of it. This explains why Samson threw away his 
weapon after the victory, and that a spring rose from 
the hollow of the jaw-bone." This is certainly richer 
still ! 

Patience ! But one more specimen remains. Samson 
loses his locks by the betrayal of Delilah, and grinds 
in the mill of the Philistines, among the women. His 
hair grows again ; he is taken out to make sport for the 
curious multitude, who so pile the roof of the building 
that, by a push upon a couple of its pillars, it fell, and 
killed many besides Samson. All very probable and 
intelligible, and substantially true, past all reasonable 
question. Now for the solar-myth interpretation. Los- 
ing his locks in the winter months, "the sun-god is 
gradually encompassed by his enemies, mist and dark- 
ness. He loses all his power and glory. Gradually 
his strength returns, and at last he reappears, . . . and, 
in the end, triumphs over his enemies once more. This 
final victory is represented by the scene in the Temple 
of Dagon." The sun dies every year, and comes to life 
again ; but " Samsor. was buried between Zorah and 



64 INTRODUCTORY. 

Eshtahol, m the burying-place of Manoah, his father," 
and we hear no more of him. Such is the interpreta- 
tion of the stories of the Bible commended to " learn- 
ers." It is true that this is the most extravagant one of 
all that have come under my observation ; but the only 
reason why others are not as extravagant seems to be 
that no others furnish such opportunity for the revels of 
imagination. If this is criticism, what would be trav- 
esty? 

An instance of the way the author has of charging 
the Hebrew writers with disregard of truth, and of fal- 
sifying their own records, is found in his account of the 
story of Korah.* " A later priest," he says, " who ac- 
cepted the story as historical, was sadly perplexed by 
the fact that Koran's family not only still existed, but 
was held in high honor. He therefore took the liberty 
of making a note to the effect that Korah's children did 
not perish with him (Numbers xxvi., 1 1), thereby contra- 
dicting the story itself, which expressly says that both 
he and his were destroyed " (Numbers xvi., 32). Now, 
the original account does not say that the children of 
Korah were swallowed up. It does not even say that 
Korah was swallowed up. It says that " Dathan and 
Abiram came out and stood in the door of their tents, 
and their wives and their sons and their little children ; 
. . . and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed 
them up, and their houses, and all the men that apper- 
tained to Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that 
appertained to them, went down alive into the pit." . . . 
Not a word is said that Korah was there with Dathan 
and Abiram when the earth opened. It is nowhere said 

•Vol. II., page 523. 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 65 

that Korah or his children were swallowed up. It is 
nowhere said that Korah, himself, was killed, either by 
the opening of the earth or by the "fire that came out 
from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty 
men that offered incense " " at the door of the taberna- 
cle of the congregation." But,. as Moses had told Ko- 
rah the day before to be present with his company at 
that place, it is a fair inference that he was one of the 
two hundred and fifty who were "consumed by fire from 
the Lord at the door of the tabernacle," while Dathan 
and Abiram and their families were swallowed up in 
another part of the camp, where were the tents of 
Reubenites. So far is it, therefore, from being true 
that Hebrew writers " concerned themselves very little 
with the question whether what they narrated really 
happened so or not," that they excelled, in accuracy of 
writing and scrupulous regard to facts, some of their 
modern readers and commentators. 



APPENDIX B.* 

Some of Dr. Kuenen's affirmations are too important 
to be passed by in entire silence. 

(I.) Dr. Kuenen affirms (Vol. II., p. 299) "that the 
Deuteronomist considers all Levites, without distinc- 
tion, qualified to fill the priestly office," and " that a 
reconciliation of Deuteronomy with Exodus — Numbers 
is not to be thought of." This, he affirms, is certain 
"from Deuteronomy x., 8, 9; and xviii., 1-8, where he 
[the Deuteronomist] expresses himself quite unambigu- 
ously." ..." He directly contradicts them [Exodus — 
Numbers] . . . and expressly allows (Deuteronomy 
xviii., 6, 7) that which, according to the priestly law- 
giver (Numbers xviii., 3)", is punished with death. 

We take distinct issue with Dr. Kuenen on this 
point. In Deuteronomy xviii., 6, 7, we read, "If a Le- 
vite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel where 
he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his mind 
unto the place which the Lord shall choose, there he 
shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all 
his brethren the Levites do, which stand before the Lord." 
Now what says Numbers xviii., 2, 3 ? "And thy 
[Aaron's] brethren of the tribe of thy father, bring 
them with thee, that . . . they may minister unto thee ; 
but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the 
tabernacle of witness, and they shall keep thy charge and 
the charge of all the tabernacle; only they shall not come 

* See page 57. 



KUENEN ? S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 67 

nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar, that 
neither they, nor ye also, die." And further on in this 
chapter many specific duties of the Levites, as distin- 
guished from those of the priests, are enumerated. 
Where, we ask with emphasis, does Numbers "ex- 
pressly contradict " Deuteronomy ? What does Deu- 
teronomy "expressly allow" which Numbers "pun- 
ishes with death " ? Both direct that Levites may serve 
at the tabernacle, Numbers specifying their duties, 
Deuteronomy only saying that the persons specified 
"should serve as all the Levites do " / that is, as directed 
in Numbers. We renew our question with stronger 
emphasis, Where is the " direct contradiction "? 

Now let us examine the first affirmation that "all Le- 
vites, without distinction, [were] qualified to fill the 
priestly office," according to Deuteronomy viii., 9 ; 
xviii., 1-8. We have already quoted the important 
portion of the latter passage, and have only to remark 
that all attempts to build up a theory of the Jewish 
priesthood and the identity of the office of the priest 
and the Levite, because of the use of the phrase, "The 
priests, the Levites," are futile. All priests were Le- 
vites, but "all" Levites were not qualified for priests ; 
and this idiomatic phrase proves only that priests 
were Levites. A critical examination of this Hebrew 
idiom would take too much space, and lead us into 
details too dry and minute to interest our readers ; and 
we refer them to the constructio asyndeta of the Hebrew 
grammars. We turn, therefore, to notice the other 
passage, which proves that "all Levites, without dis- 
tinction, [were] qualified to fill the priestly office," 
Deuteronomy x., 8, 9. It reads thus: "At that time 



68 INTRODUCTORY. 

[at Mount Sinai] the Lord separated the tribe of Levi 
to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand 
before the Lord to minister to him, and to bless in his 
name unto this day. Wherefore Levi hath no part 
nor inheritance with his brethren ; the Lord is his in- 
heritance, according as the Lord thy God promised 
him." What is there in this passage to show that 
"all" Levites were or might be priests? Not a line. 
The duty of the tribe of Levi is specified in the briefest 
manner, including the service of both priests and Le- 
vites, into which two classes the tribe is elsewhere said 
to be divided. "The reconciliation of Deuteronomy 
with Exodus — Numbers is not to be thought of," 
therefore, only because there is nothing to reconcile. 
Where there is no contradiction, there is no demand 
for conciliation. Dr. Kuenen's inference, therefore, 
that, since the Deuteronomist makes no distinction 
between the priest and Levite, he must have written 
before the " priestly ritual " of Exodus — Numbers and 
of Ezra was composed, is without support. Dr. Kuenen 
has mistaken an eddy for the current.* 

(II.) Dr. Kuenen says again (Vol. II., p. 116), 
" Ezekiel is the first to desire other rules [than that 
all Levites might officiate as priests] for the future : 
after the return of Israel to her native land, ' the sons 
of Zadok ' shall be the only lawful priests." But it is 
evident from the context (Ezekiel xliv., io-xlv.) that 

*The statement, Unitarian Review, Nov. 1880, p. 937, that, "before this 
captivity, the terms ' priest ' and ' Levite ' are synonymous," is incorrect, as shown 
"(III.)" ! and another writer echoes Kueren's statement to the same effect, and 
further informs us that Kuenen " revised his whole scheme of Israel's history " 
on account of this supposed synonymousness of "priest" and "Levite." A 
pyramid on its apex, surely. See " The Levitical Priests," by Curtis. 



69 

Ezekiel had reference in this passage to the Levites, 
and priests of the family of Aaron, who had served at 
the altars of false gods in the reigns of Hezekiah and 
Josiah, and who had thus forfeited their claim to their 
official position ; and as the " sons of Zadok " only of 
the family of Aaron remained loyal to Jehovah, they 
alone could officiate as priests. The most sacred ser- 
vices of the temple could be performed by them alone. 
Ezekiel desires no new rule. He only enforces an old 
one that those who forsake Jehovah and serve at the 
altars of false gods shall not serve at his altar. Dr. 
Kuenen is betrayed into this error by his not seeing 
that the priests are sometimes spoken of as Levites of 
whom they formed a part when the writer refers to the 
position and duties of the tribe as a body. And while 
in some instances it must be confessed that the sacred 
writers are not so clear as is desirable, yet nothing but 
an " assumed " theory could have led the author so far 
astray. 

(III.) Again, Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 325), "In 
David's days, no one thought of either the descendants 
of Aaron or the Levites being the only persons compe- 
tent to discharge the functions of priests." This is a 
remarkable statement to make, when not the name of 
a person acting as priest is mentioned who is not a 
descendant of Aaron. The legitimate inference is that, 
where names are not mentioned, the " priests " who 
are officiating at the altar are the posterity of Aaron. 
Priests and their services are mentioned frequently 
during the reign of David by the writer of the Books 
of Samuel and Kings, and not a hint is given that they 
are not Aaronic. 

(IV.) Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 208): "In the 



70 INTRODUCTORY. 

eighth century B.C., the prophet of jfahveh has become a 
writer. ... It does not appear that the older prophets . . . 
thought of writing down what they had spoken." Yet 
we read that the " acts of David and Solomon," in the 
ninth and tenth centuries B.C., were "written by Na- 
than, the prophet," and also "in the visions of Iddo, 
the seer," and also in "the book of the prophet Gad, 
David's seer " (I. Chronicles xxix., 29 ; II. Chronicles 
ix., 29). The only marvel is that so much, not that so 
little, of the early miscellaneous literature of the He- 
brews was preserved, when we remember the fortune 
of that people. 

(V.) Dr. Kuenen says (Vol. I., p. 273), "Probably 
not one of the Psalms is from David's hand." So 
destructive a critic as Hitzig claims that he wrote ten 
certainly, perhaps more. And Ewald claims fifteen, 
and probably several others. Davidson claims still 
more. So does Eichorn, and Dr. Noyes, also. A 
dozen eminent Hebrew scholars might be named who 
believe that David wrote from twenty to eighty of the 
Psalms; but it is not necessary. Every student of 
the Hebrew Scriptures knows them. But general 
readers are widely and sadly misled by such state- 
ments, and judicious, reliable scholars do not make 
them. 

(VI.) Dr. Kuenen is very confident that he can 
pick out the portions of the " Book of Origins," or the 
Elohim document, from Exodus — Numbers ; and he 
confides in the accuracy of his dissection with an assur- 
ance which is surprising to one who has made the sub- 
ject a study. The fact is, no confidence can be placed 
in any of these attempts to find and define the sup- 
posed documents of which some writers affirm that 



KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 7 1 

these books are composed. We have given the subject 
a careful and most minute- study, and we say without 
hesitation that all these attempts are abortive. Some 
specimens will be given taken from Kuenen (Vol. II., 
p. 163 — ). "Exodus xii., 1-23, 28, 37 (?), 40-51, are 
from his [Elohist's] hand." Now, this writer calls the 
Supreme Being, in Hebrew, Elohim, God, as distin- 
guished from the later writer who calls the Supreme 
Being, in Hebrew, Jehovah, Lord. This is a "chief 
characteristic " of his style. In this passage, quoted 
by Dr. Kuenen as written by the Elohist, the name 
" Jehovah " is used fifteen times and " Elohim " not 
once. In another passage, " Exodus xxv., 1 ; xxxi., 
17," Jehovah is used forty times and Elohim but three 
times. Theodore Parker says, " I would rather con- 
sider the whole passage as Jehovistic." Again, " Exo- 
dus xxxv.-xl.," Jehovah is used thirty-three times and 
Elohim once. Theodore Parker says, " To me, this 
passage seems Jehovistic throughout." Again, " Le- 
viticus viii.-x.," Jehovah is used forty times, Elohim 
not once. Again, "Numbers xv.-xix.," Jehovah is 
used fifty-seven times and Elohim twice. Once more, 
" Numbers xxvi.-xxxi.," Jehovah is used fifty-two 
times and Elohim but once. It is not necessary to ex- 
tend this note further. The "chief characteristic" of 
the Elohim document almost entirely disappears in the 
passages attributed to the Elohist writer by Dr. Kue- 
nen, and the " chief characteristic " of the Jehovistic 
writer is found in them. This is sufficient to show the 
fallacy of the whole criticism ; for, if the " chief char- 
acteristic " of one of the theoretical documents is found 
to be almost universally used in the other in practice, 
either the theory or the practice is sadly at fault. 



A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 



A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The Pentateuch, as well as other writings claiming a 
high antiquity, has been made to pass the fiery ordeal 
of criticism since the revival of Oriental learning, and, 
like not a few of them, has been denied the venerable 
age which had before been awarded to it. I do not 
complain that these writings have been tried in so puri- 
fying a fire. Nor will I complain that there has been 
some rashness manifested in this process of purification, 
since, in all first attempts, more or less imperfection 
must exist. But I have no doubt that it will be found 
in the end, after thorough scholarship and laborious re- 
search have done their work, that many of those writ- 
ings, whose antiquity has been denied, will again be in- 
stalled in their original places of reverence and age. 
The tendency is in that direction, even at this time; 
and it will grow stronger and stronger as the discoveries 
of scholars in the ruins of the ancient cities give deci- 
sive evidence of the general, and sometimes minute, ac- 
curacy of the accounts which these books contain, and 
of a literature as abundant, as various, and as copious 
as is found in the Pentateuch. 

There was a time, and it is not long since, when the 
history of Herodotus was looked upon as largely myth- 



76 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

ical, as composed of " tales imposed upon the credulity 
of the Father of History " ; but almost every modern 
discovery goes to confirm the general accuracy of He- 
rodotus, and convict the incredulity of his critics. The 
same is true of other ancient documents, and frag- 
ments of documents, which have come down to our 
day. Thorough modern research seems to be fast con- 
firming the old opinion respecting the antiquity and 
authenticity of the writings which claim to be the work 
of ancient men. 

The Old Testament writings have shared to some 
extent the fate of the writings of Herodotus and other 
ancient authors. Their historical parts have been put 
to the test of criticism, and have been declared want- 
ing. But recent discoveries and more thorough exam- 
ination are confirming their general accuracy, and win- 
ning back to them a continually increasing portion of 
the confidence which they formerly commanded. Es- 
pecially is this true of the Pentateuch. The writings 
of Moses, as they are usually called, have been sub- 
jected to the closest scrutiny by the most profound 
scholars. Perhaps no work claiming its origin in re- 
mote antiquity has passed through such an ordeal, and 
with such various results. In the first instance, a very 
modern date was given to it. The age of Ezra was 
reported by some as that in which it first saw the light. 
The date of its origin has, however, been receding ; and 
generally an antiquity considerably higher is now con- 
ceded to it by most of the same school of critics. 

But it is not my purpose to write a history of the 
progress of criticism upon the age and authenticity of 
the Pentateuch. I have made these remarks to notify 



INTRODUCTION. 77 

my readers of the present tendency of that kind of 
criticism, which has been, by some defenders of the 
ancient records, styled " destructive," that they may be 
better able to appreciate the force of the arguments 
which I propose to adduce in this study, to show that 
the Pentateuch is of the age of Moses; that there are 
reasons, by no means without weight, for the opinion 
that the first five books of the Old Testament, called 
the Pentateuch, were in the main compiled and written 
either by Moses himself or by one or more of his 
contemporaries, perhaps under his direction, or, at the 
latest, by his immediate successors. It is no part of 
my plan to prove the authenticity of these books, — the 
truth of the statements made in them, — though inci- 
dentally I shall touch that subject. My object is a 
single and simple one. I wish to present the reasons 
which have induced many of the most eminent schol- 
ars and the great mass of believers, so far as they have 
had reasons to give for their belief, for attributing the 
Pentateuch to an author or authors of the Mosaic Age. 
Nor do I propose to show or maintain that these writ- 
ings have come down to us without damage, in their 
original state precisely. I shall assume that they have 
met with the same fate in their transmission to our 
age which has befallen all other ancient writings. 
Nor shall I claim for them any inspiration, in any sense 
of that word. I shall examine them as I would any 
other writings of antiquity. 

I propose this only as my theme, — to examine the 
evidence of the origin and age of the first five books 
in our Bible, commonly called the Pentateuch. I call 
this essay a Study, because it is the result of my own 



78 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

personal investigation extending over a period ap- 
proaching half a century, and during a portion of 
which time my duty as teacher at Meadville required 
me to read the Pentateuch, as well as the rest of the 
Hebrew literature contained in the Old Testament, 
annually with the students ; and nothing has surprised 
or pained me more of late years than the careless facil- 
ity with which even men having the reputation of 
scholarship copy and adopt the statements of others, 
especially if they have come over the sea, without ver- 
ifying them ; and are not only led far astray themselves, 
which would be little, but they lead far astray multi- 
tudes of others who confide in them, just as if they 
were authority, and knew themselves, by their own 
studies, whereof they affirm. The credulous, confiding 
public is flooded with books and pamphlets written 
without knowledge and published without thought. It 
is a very easy thing to do to rewrite a dry, dull book 
into a fresh and attractive one, and to scatter broadcast 
in volume or pamphlet, in essay or sermon, the crude, 
wild, baseless theories and hypotheses of persons who, 
like the old Athenians, have nothing to do but to tell 
some new thing, or startle men with some astonishing 
discovery, or mortify them with some bold irreverence. 
No responsibility seems to be felt for the influence of 
opinions, and little regard is paid oftentimes to truth. 
There is hot haste to get every new hypothesis, the 
last guess, before the public. It goes up like a rocket, 
fizzing and sparkling, to the admiration of the on-look- 
ers, but soon grows dim, fades away, disappears, and 
disappoints. 

No such charge as haste or want of care can be 



INTRODUCTION. 79 

attributed to the preparation and publication of this 
Study. Want of skill, want of knowledge, may be its 
vital, fatal defects. Had I known more, I should have 
escaped my errors ; had I delayed pubHcation longer, 
I might have been wiser, and not have printed my con- 
clusions. But such as I have, after these long years 
of inquiry, I give, in the hope that my contribution to 
this branch of Biblical criticism will not be wholly in 
vain. 

Before entering upon the examination of the subject 
in hand, however, it will be necessary to give an outline 
of the construction and contents of the work which we 
are to examine, that the course of our inquiry may be 
clearly understood. The Pentateuch is composed of 
a sketch of the lives of the three great ancestors of 
the Hebrew people, — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Gen- 
esis xii.-l., — preceded by a sketch of the creation and 
the flood, and genealogies of the descendants of Adam 
in the line of Abraham to him (Genesis i.-xi.) ; and 
followed, after an interval of centuries, with an account 
of the residence of the Hebrews in Egypt and their 
escape from bondage to Mount Sinai (Exodus i.-xix.). 
All this is historical, and, excepting what is in Exodus, 
relates to what transpired before the birth of Moses, 
and may have been the work of some other person, 
even after his death. Nor is it probable that what is 
contained in Exodus up to the twentieth chapter was 
written by him. Nor by any one else was it written at 
the time the events recorded took place, and may 
not have been written for a century or more after- 
ward. Moses and all the other leaders were too 
busily engaged in rescuing the people from the Egyp- 



80 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

tians, and providing for their wants and organizing them 
into some orderly body, to undertake any literary 
labors. The laws given and the ritual prescribed and 
the place of worship erected, and its furniture, and the 
priest's duties and garments, are described and re- 
corded. (Exodus xx. — Numbers x., 10). This portion 
was written as the laws were given and as the events 
transpired, day by day, at Sinai. Whatever is written 
respecting their wanderings, till they arrived on the east- 
ern bank of the Jordan (Numbers x., n-xxxvi.), was 
written as the events took place, either by Moses or 
by his scribe, or by both. The closing addresses by 
Moses, and the amendments and additions to the laws 
contained in them, were written by Moses himself or 
under his direction, by his scribes (Deuteronomy i.- 
xxxi.). There is no conclusive internal evidence that 
he did not compose the song contained in the thirty- 
second chapter, and the blessings in the thirty-third; but 
some other hand of course gave the account of his 
death and burial in the thirty-fourth chapter. The 
whole Pentateuch, however, was written before any 
other books that have come down to us, as the style, 
the " archaic language," shows, and will be illustrated 
hereafter. 

This inquiry respecting the origin and age of the 
Pentateuch may be pursued, if one pleases, as a purely 
literary one ; for the Mosaic dispensation is not ours, 
nor is the Law our rule of life. Whatever may prove 
true in regard to the Pentateuch, our relations to God, 
to Christ, and to man, are unchanged. Whether the 
Law was of human or of divine origin, we are, as 
Christians, to obey Christ, and accept the " substance," 



INTRODUCTION. 8 1 

of which the Law, at the best, was only a "shadow." 
As a purely literary inquiry, therefore, I shall discuss 
them. 

Three distinct questions present themselves for con- 
sideration in opening our inquiry : Is the Pentateuch 
as old as the time of Moses? Is Moses its author? 
Does it contain a reliable account of the revelation 
which God made to the Jews ? The first of these ques- 
tions may be answered in the affirmative, and yet both 
the others be answered in the negative. The first two 
may be answered in the affirmative, and the last in the 
negative. The second may be answered in the nega- 
tive, and the first and last in the affirmative. We can 
suppose Moses wrote the book and wrote incorrectly. 
We can suppose it to be of the Mosaic Age, and yet 
not written by him. We can suppose that, though not 
written by him, it contains the truth. 

In this Study, I propose to examine and answer only 
the first question : Is the Pentateuch as old as the time 
of Moses? The inquiry will be divided into two 
parts : (1) the historical indications of the existence of the 
book ; and (2) the evidence to be derived from its i7iternal 
character, — or the external and internal evidence. I 
shall commence with the former. 



PART I. 

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

In tracing the historical references to this work, we 
must have regard to the character of the writings in 
which the references are contained, and to the state of 
mind which the people were in to whom these writings 
were addressed. Where a people are well acquainted 
with a book, the references to it will be incidental 
rather than direct, implied rather than expressed. The 
Pentateuch, in the time of our Saviour, was so well 
known that it was not necessary to be definite in de- 
scribing the book when references were made to it. 
The copy used, the page from which the quotation was 
taken, or to which reference was made, were not stated. 
The writer or speaker thought he had been sufficiently 
explicit if he had said " The Law " or " The Law of 
Moses" or "The Book of the Law." More frequently 
in that age, the Pentateuch was called only " The Law." 
Let us, then, trace back from this period, in which the 
Pentateuch was undeniably called " The Law " when 
reference was made to it, indications of its existence in 
still earlier periods. And if we find references made 
to "The Law "and to " The Book of the Law" and 
to " The Law of Moses " and to " The Law of the 
Lord," we are bound to infer, unless overpowering 
reasons to the contrary can be given, that the Penta- 
teuch is the book referred to ; and especially are we 



FROM CHRIST TO MALACHI. 83 

bound to infer this, if quotations are made from the 
book referred to which are contained in the Pentateuch 
as we now have it, or as it existed at the time the quo- 
tations were made. These statements, if reduced fo 
a canon of criticism, would give the following law of 
historical inquiry, which I believe to be correct; 
namely, if we find that a?i ancient book is referred to, in 
all later works, by the name which is now given to it, and 
that references are made to it, and that quotations are 
made from its contents, such substantially as we now find 
in it, then the proper, the necessary conclusiofi is that the 
book is the same as that which we possess. 

This law of historical criticism I intend to apply to 
this inquiry respecting the antiquity of the Pentateuch 
in substantially the same form as that in which it existed 
in the time of Christ. I propose to go back, step by 
step, examining all the writings relating to the subject 
which have come down to our time, that we may learn 
whether they refer to the " Book of Moses," and, if so, 
in what manner. If we find such a book alluded to, 
named, quoted from, in the writings which have come 
down to us from the Jewish people, then the conclusion 
is that the book is at least as old as any of these writ- 
ings, just as a traveller who has ascended the Nile from 
Alexandria to its outflow from a lake in central Africa 
would be sure he had found its source. 

SECTION I. FROM CHRIST TO MALACHI. 

I begin with the first Book of Esdras, which was 
probably written a short time before the birth of Christ. 
It speaks of the "Book of Moses," of "The Law of 
Moses," of "The Law of the Lord," and of "The 



84 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

Law." That in the last instance a book is meant is 
clear from the rest of the passage: after Esdras had 
brought "The Law of Moses," "When he had opened 
the Law, they stood up " (ix., 46). 

The first Book of Maccabees was written about one 
hundred years before Christ. " The Book of the Law " 
is spoken of (iii., 48), and "The Law" is very fre- 
quently alluded to in it. The Book of Ecclesiasticus 
was written about a century before the Book of Macca- 
bees, according to the more probable opinion. In this, 
we find reference to "The Law which Moses com- 
manded" (xxiv., 23), to "The Book of the Covenant of 
the Most High God," to "The Law of God," and to 
"The Law" very frequently. The translator of this 
book, who lived about seventy years later, speaks of 
"The Law," referring to the Pentateuch, five times in 
his short preface. One hundred years earlier than this 
book was written, the Septuagint translation was made ; 
and, one hundred years before the Septuagint translation 
was made, the Samaritan Pentateuch was in existence. 
How much earlier than this it existed, 1 do not now at- 
tempt to decide. But that it existed as early as four 
hundred years before Christ there is no good reason to 
doubt. I have now gone back to the time of the 
Prophet Malachi. From his time down to the time of 
the son of Sirach, who composed the Book of Ecclesi- 
asticus, we have probably no Jewish writings. 

What they were accustomed to call the Pentateuch, 
when they referred to it by name, we cannot tell. It 
was in existence during this period we know ; for the 
Septuagint translation was made, and the Samaritan 
Pentateuch was in existence. Back to the time of Mai- 



FROM MALACHI TO EZRA. 85 

achi, it is very easy to trace the use of the Pentateuch 
as it existed in the time of Christ. There can be no 
mistake respecting it. 

SECTION II. FROM MALACHI TC EZRA. 

Let us now examine the books which are extant which 
were written after the return from the captivity, or rather 
those which give an account of the nation after its return 
from the captivity to the time of Malachi; for I will 
omit a consideration of the testimony of the Books of 
Chronicles for the present. The prophecies of Mala- 
chi, Zechariah, and Haggai, and the histories contained 
in Ezra and Nehemiah, cover a period of about one 
hundred and fifty years, extending back to five hundred 
and thirty-two years before Christ. Malachi exhorts the 
people to " remember the Law of Moses." He accuses 
the priests of being " partial in the Law," and of caus- 
ing many to stumble at "The Law," and tells them that 
the people should seek " The Law " at the mouth of the 
priest (iv., 4; ii., 7, 8, 9). Haggai is directed by the 
Lord to ask the "priest concerning the Law" (ii., n). 
Zechariah accuses the people of making " their hearts 
as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the Law " 
(vii., 12). The particular sins of which these prophets 
reproach the people are violations of precepts contained 
in the Pentateuch, and the virtues which they approve 
are founded on obedience to the laws found in it. 

But we find much more distinct reference to the Pen- 
tateuch in the Books of Nehemiah and Ezra than in 
these poetical books. In the eighth chapter of the 
Book of Nehemiah there is a very full account of "The 
Book of the Law of Moses." A summary may be given 



86 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

in a few words, in which the various names by which 
this book was called may be included. The people 
spake to " Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law 
of Moses, . . . and he brought the Law . . . and read 
therein, . . . and the ears of all the people were atten- 
tive unto the Book of the Law. . . . And Ezra opened 
the Book," and he appointed many others who "caused 
the people to understand the Law. ... So they read in 
the Book of the Law of God distinctly. . . . And the 
people wept when they heard the words of the Law. . . . 
Also he read in the Book of the Law of God," In the 
tenth chapter, we read of " God's law given by the hand 
of Moses," and of that which "is written in the Law." 
In the thirteenth chapter, it is said, "They read in the 
Book of Moses." These passages show us most clearly 
that this book was called by different names, and that 
one of them was simply " The Law." The passages 
quoted in Nehemiah from " The Book of the Law " are 
found in the Pentateuch. Indeed, the Samaritan Pen- 
tateuch was nearly contemporaneous with Nehemiah, as 
some of the ablest critics contend, if it does not date 
back many years earlier, as is not improbable, to say the 
least of it. 

The Book of Ezra, which contains a history of a still 
earlier period, is equally clear and explicit in its refer- 
ences to the Book of Moses. It is said that they "of- 
fered burnt-offering, as it is written in the Law of Mo- 
ses" (iii., 2); that they "set the priests, ... as it is 
written in the Book of Moses " (vi., 18). We read that 
Ezra was a "ready scribe in the Law of Moses," and 
that he "prepared his heart to seek the Law of the 
Lord " (vii., 6, 10). Strange wives are said to have been 



FROM THE CAPTIVITY TO DAVID. 87 

put away, according to "The Law " (x., 3). This Ezra, 
a learned scribe in "The Law," is said, in the history 
which gives an account of his deeds, to have instructed 
the people in the Law, and to have established the wor- 
ship as required by the Law. He is evidently fully hon- 
ored in the book ; but the greatest work which tradition 
attributes to him is not alluded to, not hinted at in the 
most remote manner. I refer to the work of recovering 
the Law, and putting in order its commands, after they 
had been lost during the captivity. Of this work, noth- 
ing is said, nothing is hinted. " The Book of the Law " 
is spoken of as something in existence, not as something 
which Ezra composed or compiled or found. Whatever 
may have been its origin, Ezra was not its author. And, 
should there be no evidence of its existence before the 
time of Ezra or before the captivity, it would still be true 
that we have not a shadow of historical evidence that 
Ezra was the author of the book, but, rather, most abun- 
dant evidence should we have to the contrary. The 
quotations which are made from this "Book of the 
Law " are taken from the Pentateuch as we now have 
it ; and the historical proof is strong that he read to the 
people the book which has come down to us. So far, 
the historical notices of the book are all that could be 
expected under the circumstances. No work of so high 
antiquity has come down to us with so good evidence of 
its genuineness. 

SECTION III. FROM THE CAPTIVITY TO DAVID. 

A broader field now opens before us, and more diffi- 
cult to traverse. Are there any traces of the existence 
of this book at an earlier period ? Are there any refer- 



88 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

ences to such a work in the earlier writings of the Jew- 
ish nation, or in writings of the period of Ezra which 
relate to the earlier times of the people ? This is the 
question which is now to be answered. 

Before proceeding to answer the question proposed, 
however, it is necessary to notice a few particulars 
touching the writings which have come down to us. 
They may be divided into two classes, the poetical 
and the historical. Respecting the latter class, little 
or nothing need be said by way of explanation. In 
poetical books, we do not expect such explicit refer- 
ences to books, especially to those which are familiar 
to us, as in prose compositions. How few references 
to the New Testament of such a nature as you will see 
in a librarian's catalogue, or a critic's treatise, will you 
find in all the poetical works in the English language ! 
Even in our sacred poetry, no such specific titles of 
the New Testament are found. " God in the gospel of 
his Son" is, I think, the most specific reference in one 
of our hymn-books. And, even in sermons, it is not 
often that book and chapter and verse are referred to. 
It is sufficient for our purpose, if there is such a refer- 
ence or allusion to the Gospels as enables us to per- 
ceive that such is the poet's or preacher's intent. So 
in the poetical books of the period preceding and dur- 
ing the captivity. All that we can expect to find, and 
all that we need to find, to prove the existence of the 
" Book of the Law," which Ezra read and taught, is 
such allusion to its contents and spirit, and such use 
of its words and phrases, as to show that it was in the 
poet's mind. If we demand more proof than this, we 
demand what, from the very nature of the case, we 
ought not to expect. 



FROM THF CAPTIVITY TO DAVID. 89 

Respecting the historical books, it should be remem- 
bered that a period of probably one thousand years 
is covered by the Books of judges, Samuel, and Kings, 
the whole contents of which would not make a volume 
larger than the fifth volume of Bancroft's History of 
the United States, which embraces a period of but three 
years. The Books of Chronicles cover a portion of 
the same period, beginning with David, and giving 
only brief genealogies of what preceded his time. 
Surely, if " The Law " was really a well-known book, we 
should expect to find but very few specific references 
to it in these writings. None, indeed, should we expect 
to find there, unless something very closely connected 
with the book itself should call for them. All that 
we can expect is such a reference to manners, customs, 
institutions, duties, as shall indicate an existing, funda- 
mental law, such as was contained in Ezra's " Book of 
the Law," which he read to the people, and taught 
them to obey, as having been given by Moses in con- 
formity to the divine command. More reference than 
this to the Pentateuch, I hesitate not to say, cannot be 
expected in these books. Were there more, I should 
not be surprised to find an argument, drawn from their 
very frequency, against the reliableness of the books 
themselves, such as is now drawn against the reliable- 
ness of Chronicles, because the writer has dwelt at 
greater length on ecclesiastical affairs than the writer 
of the Books of the Kings has seen fit to do. Let us 
bear in mind, then, as we proceed to examine these 
books, both poetical and historical, that we must not 
expect more, nor a different kind of, references to the 
"Book of the Law" than the circumstances of the 



90 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

case authorize. On the supposition that the Penta- 
teuch did exist as early as the time of David, we can- 
not expect reasonably any more evidence of the fact 
from these Jewish writings than I have before indi- 
cated. 

I. Evidences from the Historical Writings. — In the 
first place, I will examine the historical writings which 
treat of the period before the captivity from the time 
of David ; and, as some objection has been raised 
against the reliableness of the Books of the Chroni- 
cles, I will first examine the Books of the Kings. I 
will mention the passages in which " The Book of the 
Law " is referred to, and then I will quote those words 
and phrases which are evidently taken from that book. 
This division of the evidence seems necessary in order 
to bring out its force fully. I will then turn to the 
Books of the Chronicles, and inquire whether there is 
such an obvious prejudice in the writer's mind respect- 
ing this Book of the Law as to make void all his state- 
ments in regard to it. 

In the Books of the Kings, we find the following^ 
references to the Pentateuch. In the time of Josiah, 
whose reign closed twenty-three years before the cap- 
tivity, we read (II. Kings xxii.) that Hilkiah, the high 
priest, "found the Book of the Law in the house of 
the Lord," which was then undergoing repairs. When 
the king " heard the words of the Book of the Law, he 
rent his clothes " ; for the people, both under the reign 
of his father and that of his grandfather for sixty 
years, had disregarded the Law utterly, having erected 
idols in the Temple for the people, and having endeav- 
ored by the utmost cruelties to exterminate the worship 



EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 91 

of Jehovah. And in the twenty-third chapter we read 
that the king "read all the words of this covenant that 
were written in this book." And he " commanded all 
the people to keep the passover, as it is written in the 
book of this covenant." And he "turned to the Lord 
with all his soul and with all his might, according to 
all the Law of Moses." 

It will be noticed that the same name is given to the 
book found by Hilkiah which was given to the book 
which Ezra used in instructing the people. Some diffi- 
culties, however, have been started respecting this trans- 
action which demand a moment's notice. It has been 
asked significantly how it was possible for Josiah to be 
entirely ignorant of the contents of the Law of Moses. 
It has always appeared to me that the answer is very 
easy, when we consider the condition of the kingdom. 
Manasseh, the grandfather of Josiah, had reigned most 
wickedly for fifty-five years. He had introduced all 
the "abominations of the heathen," had "built altars 
in the house of the Lord," and had built "altars for 
all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house 
of the Lord." He also made his son pass through 
fire, and " dealt with familiar spirits and wizards," and 
"shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled 
Jerusalem from one end to the other." And Amon, 
his son, the father of Josiah, in his short reign of two 
years, "forsook the Lord and walked in all the way of 
his fathers." So that for fifty-seven years the Law had 
been utterly disregarded, and very probably all the 
copies of the Law on which the wicked kings could lay 
their hands had been destroyed. Josiah came to the 
throne when he was a mere child, only eight years of 



92 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

age. When he had reigned eighteen years, as some 
maintain, or when he was eighteen years of age, and 
had reigned ten years, as others suppose, he appears 
to have learned something about the religion of the 
fathers, and to have commenced repairs on the Tem- 
ple. The pious Jews would unquestionably try his 
disposition toward a change from idol worship ; and, 
when it was found that he was disposed to return to 
the worship of his fathers, a copy of the Law was pro- 
duced for his examination. It was very probably the 
Temple copy, — perhaps the autograph of Moses which 
had been hidden by the priests to keep it from the 
destroying hands of Manasseh. As Hilkiah expresses 
no surprise at rinding the book, nor Shaphan at its 
contents, they probably had arranged this matter so as 
to put this venerable copy into the king's hands. Tak- 
ing all these circumstances into the account, it is 
neither wonderful that Josiah was overwhelmed with 
grief when the book was read, nor that Hilkiah should 
have brought the book from its hiding-place at this 
time. It is possible, to take another view, namely, 
that, in removing the rubbish from the Temple, the lost 
Mosaic autograph copy of the Law, which was kept in 
the Temple for sacred purposes, may have been found. 
At all events, there is nothing in this account which 
indicates that the book was not in existence before 
this time, as some have maintained, but quite the con- 
trary ; for how could it have been found if it had not 
existed before the finding ? De Wette admits that the 
book here found is the Pentateuch. These are his 
words : " The discovery of the Book of the Law in 
the Temple, under Josiah's reign, about 624 B.C., re- 



EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 93 

lated in II. Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of tne 
Pentateuch in its present form." That the Pentateuch 
was "in its present form " in the time of Josiah is suf- 
ficiently clear from the historical proof that we have 
adduced. Whether De Wette is correct or not in say- 
ing that it is the " first certain trace of it in its present 
form " will soon appear.* 

In the reign of Hezekiah, who preceded Josiah 
about one hundred years, we read (II. Kings xvii., 13) 
that the kingdom of Israel had neglected the covenant 
"made with the fathers"; and they are exhorted to 
turn from their evil ways, and to walk " according to 
all the Law." In the thirty-fourth and thirty-seventh 
verses, it is stated that the people " fear not the Lord, 
neither do they after their statutes or after their ordi- 
nances or after the Law and commandment which the 

* It has been objected to this account of the loss and recovery of the roll of 
the Law that it is so highly improbable as to render it incredible, and furnish 
evidence of its being a forgery. Bat the historical scholar will recall cases 
more wonderful than this. William Bradford s manuscript History of Ply- 
mouth Plantation was cited by Prince in 1736, and composed a part of his 
library deposited in the tower of the Old South Church, Boston, Mass. It 
was last cited by Governor Hutchinson in 1767. It was lost, though most dili- 
gent search was made for it for eighty years, when it was found acc'dentally in 
England by the Bishop of Oxford, in the Fulham Library, as he was searching 
for material for his History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, 

Bradford's Letter-Book MS. was also lost for many years. At last, a portion 
of it was accidentally found in a grocer's shop in Halifax, N.S., by James Clarke, 
Esq. These specimens of lost and recovered MSS. in modern times must 
suffice to show the perfect credibility of this account of Hilkiah. It will not 
be considered to the point probably to mention that Herculaneum and Pompeii 
were lost for over sixteen centuries in the heart of Italy. Most certainly, a 
Hebrew roll might be lost for sixty years in the ruined, desecrated Temple of 
Jerusalem. 

Prof. W. Robertson Smith says, in his lectures on the Old Testament in the 
Jewish Church, p. 362, "The comparison of Deuteronomy xviii. with II. Kings 
xxxiii., et seg., effectually disproves the idea of some critics that the Deuter- 
onomic Code was a forgery of the Temple priests or of their head, the high priest 
Hilkiah." 



94 A STUDY OF THE PENTA1EUCH. 

Lord commanded the children of Jacob " ; ... with 
whom the Lord had made a covenant and charged 
them, saying, " Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow 
yourselves to them, nor serve them (Exodus xx., 5). . . . 
But the statutes and the ordinances and the Law and 
the commandment which he wrote for you, ye shall 
observe, since the Lord brought you out of the land of 
Egypt." The reference here to a book, and the same 
book which Josiah found, is too clear to need comment. 
It is so minutely described as containing the " statutes " 
and "ordinances" and "commandments" that there 
seems to be no room for reasonable doubt about the 
identity of the books. If room for doubt is left by 
these passages, chapter xviii., 6, closes it : Hezekiah 
" clave to the Lord, and kept his commandments which 
the Lord commanded Moses." 

In about 830 B.C., a hundred years before the reign 
of Hezekiah, we read (II. Kings xiv., 6) that Amaziah, 
King of Judah, " slew not the children of the murder- 
ers [who had slain his father], according unto that 
which is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, 
wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers 
shall not be put to death for the children, nor the 
children be put to death for the fathers " (Deuteronomy 
xxiv., 16). Here the "Book" is distinctly spoken of 
as having been in existence in the time of Amaziah, 
two hundred years before the reign of Josiah. If it 
should be said that this is a remark of the historian 
derived from the opinions of his own time, the case is 
varied but little; for it would show that in this time 
the antiquity of the book was the common belief. 

About fifty years earlier than this, when Jehoash was 



EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 95 

anointed king, we read (II. Kings xi., 12) that a part 
of the ceremony of his coronation consisted in giving 
him "the testimony," or, as De Wette and Gesenius 
translate, "The Law." In Deuteronomy xvii., 18, 19, 
it is required of the king that he should have "a copy 
of the Law," ... "to read therein all the days of his 
life." It is also recorded of Jehu, who reigned over 
Israel but a few years earlier, that he " took no heed 
to walk in the Law of the Lord God of Israel " (II. 
Kings x., 31). When the days drew nigh that David 
should die, he called Solomon to him, and charged him 
most solemnly to walk in the ways of the Lord, "to 
keep his statutes and his commandments and his judg- 
ments and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law 
of Moses " (I. Kings ii., 3). 

Such are the explicit references in the Books of the 
Kings to the Law of Moses. The references are made 
to one book, the same as that which Josiah had, and 
from which Ezra taught. In about sixty pages of the 
copy of the Bible before me, containing a civil history 
of five hundred years, could more specific references 
to the Pentateuch have been expected ? So brief, so 
limited, is the history that but few facts of any kind 
could be stated : much less could there be a continual, 
specific reference by name to a book which was so well 
known as that which contained the fundamental law of 
the nation must necessarily have been. 

The last remark suggests another argument in favor 
of the existence of the book during the period of the 
Kings. It is that the sins rebuked are violations of 
the Mosaic Law, that the blessings promised are con- 
ditional upon obedience to that law. The whole tone 



g6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

of the history is taken from the Pentateuch. I will 
enter into a more minute examination of this phenom- 
enon, that the force of the argument derived from it 
may be more fully appreciated. This is the second 
division of the evidence to be derived from the Books 
of the Kings which I proposed to examine. If we 
discover that a writer is borrowing words and phrases 
which we find in a book to which he sometimes refers 
by the usual title, we are still more confirmed in the 
belief that he had before him the identical book which 
has come into our hands ; just as, when we find the 
phraseology of the New Testament in the sermon or his. 
tory which we are reading, we feel assured that the 
author had a copy of that book substantially like our 
own. I have already, in the examination of the Books 
of the Kings, made one or two quotations which con- 
tain passages from the Pentateuch. I will now pro- 
ceed to show that there is a Mosaic phraseology, an intro- 
duction and use of religious terms a?id antique expressions 
which indicate familiarity with the Books of Moses ; as 
the phrases, "was let hitherto," "thorn in the flesh," 
"given to hospitality," indicate familiarity with the 
language of the New Testament. 

In I. Kings ii., 3, Solomon is directed to keep the 
Law, that "he may prosper in all that he does," — a 
verbal quotation from Deuteronomy xxix., 9, except 
the change of person from plural to singular, to adapt 
it to the person addressed. In the prayer which Sol- 
omon delivered at the dedication of the Temple, there 
are numerous words and phrases taken from the Pen- 
tateuch, such as, "if any man trespass against his 
neighbor," " blasting and mildew," " the people of 



EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 97 

thine inheritance," "the Lord is God, there is none 
else." And if we consider that, in connection with 
the use of these phrases, Solomon makes use of thes 
expressions, " as thou spakest by the ha?id of Moses thy 
servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of the 
land of Egypt," "there hath not failed one word of all 
his good promise which he promised by the hand of Moses 
his servant" we cannot but feel a strong assurance, not 
to say certainty, that we have the book which contained 
those promises. In chapter xxi., 3, Naboth says to 
Ahab, who had proposed that Naboth should give him 
his vineyard, " The Lord forbid it me that I should give 
the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." The " inher- 
itance of the fathers " was inalienable according to the 
Law, and was considered very precious, as may be seen 
by referring to Numbers xxxvi. In chapter xxii., 11, 
Zedekiah, a false prophet, who had " made him horns 
of iron," declared to Ahab, " With these shalt thou push 
the Syrians," referring directly to Deuteronomy xxxiii., 
17, where it is said of Joseph, "His horns are like the 
horns of unicorns ; with them shall he push the people 
together to the ends of the earth." In the seventeenth 
verse of the same chapter, it is said, " I saw all Israel 
... as sheep that have not a shepherd." This phrase 
is taken from Numbers xxvii., 17 : "That the congrega- 
tion of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shep- 
herd." The agreement in the Hebrew is verbal. In 
the twenty-seventh verse, a prophet is sentenced by the 
king to eat the "bread of affliction," a phrase taken 
from Deuteronomy xvi., 3, where the poor bread which 
the people were compelled to eat on their departure 
from Egypt is so called. In II. Kings ii., 9, Elisha 



9& A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

prays Elijah, "Let a double portion of thy spirit rest 
on me." This phrase, "double portion," is taken from 
Deuteronomy xxi., 17, where the portion of the "first- 
born " is described and defined. The use of the word 
phe in the sense of " portion " is found but three times 
in the Old Testament. In chapter iii., 19, 20, we find 
Elisha directing the king, when he made war upon the 
Moabites, to "fell every good tree," which is an allusion 
to Deuteronomy xx., 19, 20. In chapter iv., 16, we find 
a very peculiar expression relating to the birth of a 
child which is also found in Genesis xviii., 10, 14, where 
Sarah is assured that she shall have a son. The simi- 
larity of the two cases in some of their circumstances 
no doubt prompted the use of the peculiar phrase in 
Kings, " About this season, according to the time of life, 
thou shalt embrace a son." In the forty-second verse 
of this chapter, we read that a man brought to Elisha 
" bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and 
full ears of corn " (carmel). This word is used to de- 
note the "polenta of early grain in Leviticus ii., 14- 
xxiii., 14," says Gesenius. In chapter v., 27, we read 
that the servant of Elisha went out from his presence 
" a leper white as snow." This peculiar phrase is 
used in Numbers xii., 10; Exodus iv., 6; and nowhere 
else. The phrase as used in those passages under such 
peculiar circumstances is very strongly marked, and 
is used by the writer in Kings to indicate the severity 
of the punishment which fell upon the servant of 
Elisha. A peculiar word is used in Genesis xix., 11, to 
indicate blindness : "They smote the men that were at 
the door with blindness." This Hebrew word is used 
in II. Kings vi., 18 : " Smite, 1 pray thee, this people 



EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 99 

with blindness." Elisha doubtless had in his mind the 
peculiar word which indicated the blindness with which 
the rioters about Lot's house had been smitten. The 
word is used in only these two instances. In chapter 
vii., 2, an unbeliever is represented as addressing Elisha 
thus : " If the Lord would make windows in heaven, 
might this thing be?" In Genesis vii., 11, "the win- 
dows of heaven " are spoken of as having been opened 
to produce the devastating flood. So here the speaker 
says that, when a flood comes again, this which you 
have predicted may happen. So references in the 
Prophets are made to the same event in this peculiar 
phrase (Isaiah xxiv., iS j Malachi iii., 10), which is 
used nowhere else. 

Such is a specimen of the peculiar words which are 
used in the Books of the Kings, taken from the Penta- 
teuch. But we also find in these books statements re- 
specting the observance of ordinances required in the 
Pentateuch. In I. Kings xviii., 29, 36, we read of the 
"time of offering the evening sacrifice," as required in 
Exodus xxix., 39 ; and in II. Kings iii., 20, we read that 
aid was afforded " in the morning when the meat offer- 
ing was offered." Compare this with the same passage 
in Exodus, and we shall find that offerings were required 
morning and evening, and that a meat (or meal) offer- 
ing was to be offered with the lamb. In II. Kings iv., 
23, we read of two festal days, "the new moon " and 
"the Sabbath." And, in the first verse of the same 
chapter, we read of a creditor of whom a woman says, 
he " is come to take unto him my two sons to be bond- 
men." This the Law (Leviticus xxv., 39) permitted 
and regulated. Solomon is represented as "offering 



IOO A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

burnt-offerings and peace-offerings," both of which were 
required by the Law. He also assembled all the people 
" at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the sev- 
enth month." This was the feast of the tabernacle, and 
the Temple was dedicated at this time. On account of 
the joyfulness of the occasion, Solomon doubled the 
days of this most joyful of all the feasts. In I. Kings 
xii., 32, after the division of the kingdom, we read that 
Jeroboam " ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the 
fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in 
Judah, ... in a month which he had devised of his own 
heart." Well did the historian say this, for the Law re- 
quired the feast to be in the seventh month, not in the 
eighth. 

The testimony rendered in the Books of the Kings — 
by the name of the book, by the use of its peculiar 
terms, by the quotations made from its contents, by the 
description of observances, sacrifices, feasts, offerings, 
such as the Law requires — to the existence of "the 
Book of the Law of Moses " which Ezra used in teach- 
ing the people is as full and as specific as, under the 
circumstances, we could expect. Had we no other writ- 
ings of this period, the proof of the existence of the 
Pentateuch would be as great as that which is furnished 
for the antiquity of any other work of that age. But 
there are other writings. The Books of the Chronicles 
are still to be examined. 

The writer of these Books of the Chronicles speaks 
more of ecclesiastical affairs, and hence we would ex- 
pect to find in his writings more frequent reference to 
the rites and ceremonies of their religion. De Wette, 
Kuenen especially, and others, have decried these books 



EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. IOT 

because they have what they call a Levitical spirit. I 
am not sure that a priestly spirit is more likely to bias 
an historian than a political spirit. There has been no 
evidence brought that the bias of the writer has cor- 
rupted his integrity. At all events, I am sure that the 
reader, after comparing what the chronicler has re- 
corded respecting the Law with what is said respecting 
it in the Books of the Kings, will not be disposed to 
think that his Levitical bias has done him serious harm 
as an historian. Let us, then, see what this writer, who 
has been so unceremoniously treated, has to say of the 
Law, and the customs of the people so far as they re- 
garded the Law. 

In I. Chronicles xvi., 40, we read that Zadok the 
priest did " according to all that is written in the Law 
of the Lord, which he commanded Israel." In chapter 
xxii., 12, 13, David charges Solomon to "keep the Law 
of the Lord," and to "take heed to fulfil the statutes 
and judgments which the Lord charged Moses with con- 
cerning Israel." In II. Chronicles vi., 16, Solomon 
prays that God's promise to his father, founded on this 
condition, — if "thy children take heed to walk in my 
Law," — may be fulfilled in him. This passage has been 
quoted before, from Kings. In chapter xii., 1, Reho- 
boam is said to have forsaken " the Law of the Lord." 
In chapter xiv., 4, Judah is commanded "to do the 
Law." In chapter xvii. is an account of the good king 
Jehoshaphat's sending out teachers to instruct the peo- 
ple ; and " they took the Book of the Law of the Lord 
with them, and went about throughout all the cities of 
Judah, and taught the people." In chapter xxiii., 18, it 
is said that Jehoiada appointed persons who should 



102 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

" offer the burnt-offerings of the Lord, as it is written in 
the Law of Moses" In chapter xxv., 4, we read that 
Amaziah slew not the children of his father's murderers, 
"but did as it is written in the Law of the Book of Moses, 
where the Lord commanded, saying, " The fathers shall 
not die for the children, neither shall the children die 
for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." 
This passage is quoted from Deuteronomy xxiv., 16. 
The parallel passage is II. Kings xiv., 6. In chapter 
xxx., 16, we read that the priests and Levites stood in 
their " place, . . . according to the Law of Moses." In 
the thirty-first chapter, Hezekiah directs that " morning 
and evening burnt-offerings, and the burnt-offerings for 
the Sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set 
feasts " shall be offered, " as it is written in the Law of 
the Lord." He further directed that " the portion of the 
priests and Levites" should be given them, "that they 
might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord." And 
" every work that he began ... in the Law ... he did 
with all his heart." In chapter xxxiii., 8, we read of " the 
whole Law and statutes and ordinances by the hand of 
Moses." In chapter xxxiv., we have an account of the 
finding of the " Book of the Law of the Lord given by 
Moses," parallel to the passage in II. Kings xxii. In 
chapter xxxv., Josiah commands to kill the passover 
" according to the word of the Lord by the hand of 
Moses"; and they did "as it is written in the Book of 
Moses." And the good king's acts were "according to 
that which was written in the Law of the Lord." It 
will be observed that the " Book of Moses " and " the 
Law of the Lord " are identical. 

Such is the manner in which the Pentateuch is spoken 



EVIDENCES FROM THE HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 103 

of in the Books of the Chronicles. There is no marked 
difference between the style of reference and that in 
the Kings. Nor are the references much more numer- 
ous. These titles of the book, or the names by which it 
is called, are the same as those which we found in the 
Books of the Kings, in Ezra, in Nehemiah, in Malachi, 
in Ecclesiasticus, and in Maccabees. The same names 
being used, the inference is that the same book is re- 
ferred to. But as we found quotations from the book 
in Kings, so we do in the Chronicles, still more cer- 
tainly identifying it as the same book by its contents. 
The use of peculiar and emphatic terms which are found 
in the Pentateuch shows that the writer was familiar 
with the book as we now have it. The people are ex- 
horted not to be "stiff-necked " as their fathers were, — 
II. Chronicles xxx., 8. In the Pentateuch, this is a fa- 
vorite term. "The mighty hand and stretched-out arm" 
are spoken of in chapter vi., 32, which is a peculiar 
phrase of the Pentateuch. God is said to be " gracious 
and merciful," chapter xxx., 9, which is a quotation from 
Exodus xxxiv., 6. It is used elsewhere in the Penta- 
teuch, however. In chapter xxx., 15. we read that 
"they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the 
second month"; and "kept the feast of unleavened 
bread seven days," verse 21. This is in accordance 
with what is recorded in Exodus xii. The feasts are 
spoken of. In chapter viii., 13, we read of the solemn 
feasts, three times a year, " even the feast of unleavened 
bread, and the feast of weeks, and the feast of taber- 
nacles." And in these books, as in the Books of the 
Kings, the whole tone of rebuke and approbation is 
taken from the standard established in the Pentateuch. 



104 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

Nothing could be expected different in their style and 
tone, if it were mathematically certain that the Penta- 
teuch existed at this time, by information derived from 
an entirely different source. 

I have now examined the historical works which 
treat of the condition of the people from the time of 
David. It is for the reader to determine whether there 
is not as much and as explicit reference to the Penta- 
teuch as, under the circumstances, could be expected. 
What book of that age can be so certainly traced in 
history ? We have found no hint of any remodelling 
of the work, and we have no historical reason to sup- 
pose that any such thing was done. Without any far- 
ther evidence, we have sufficient proof of the existence 
of the Pentateuch in the days of David, within three 
or four centuries of the time of Moses. But the whole 
field of the poetical books is yet to be explored. Fur- 
ther and striking evidence will here appear of the an- 
tiquity of the " Law of Moses, the man of God." 

II. Evide?ue fro?n the Poetical Books. — I have al- 
ready remarked that in poetical works we do not ex- 
pect to find books referred to by quoting their title- 
page ; and usually we may expect that the reference 
will be the less explicit as the work referred to is well 
known. We shall only look for general terms and 
phrases, and shall often expect to find some word ex- 
pressive of the contents of the book used by me- 
tonymy to denote the book itself. In the historical 
books, we have found that the Pentateuch was referred 
to by the name of "The Law," "The Law of Moses," 
"The Law of the Lord," "The statutes, judgments, 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 05 

commandments, and ordinances of the Lord." We 
may therefoie expect to find only these, and still 
more general, names given to the book by the poets. 

1. The Book of Daniel is supposed by many to 
have been written at a late period, long after the cap- 
tivity. As I do not propose to enter into any discus- 
sion respecting the age of the books which I shall 
quote, I will only remark that, if Daniel was written 
at as late a period as is maintained by some, it shows 
how the Pentateuch was referred to at that time, and 
enables us to trace the book, by the manner in which it 
is spoken of, back to earlier times. In Daniel ix., 10, 
11, 13, we find the prophet lamenting, in his prayer, 
the sins of the people ; and he confesses as follows : 
" Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our 
God to walk in his laws. . . . Yea, all Israel have trans- 
gressed thy Law ; . . . and therefore the curse is poured 
upon us. . . that is written in the Law of Moses, the ser- 
vant of God. . . . And he hath confirmed his words, . . . 
as it is written in the Law of Moses." That the Pen- 
tateuch is here referred to is past all question. 

2. Habakkuk, speaking of the violence that pre- 
vailed in the land, gives, as a reason for it, that " the 
Law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth," 
chapter i., 4. 

3. Zephaniah, chapter ii., 3, exhorts all those "to 
seek the Lord which have wrought his judgment," i.e., 
obeyed his Law ; for we shall soon find that this word 
sometimes stands for the whole Law. 

4. Ezekiel, who lived during the captivity, prophesy- 
ing of the evil yet to befall the people, says, chapter 
vii., 26, " The Law shall perish from the priests." In 



Io6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

the name of God, he says to the people, chapter v., 6, 
" they have refused my judgments and my statutes, 
and have not walked in them." He declares, chapter 
xi., 20, that their heart will yet become flesh, so that 
they will walk in "the statutes and keep the ordi- 
nances " of the Lord. He repeats the same truth in 
chapter xxxvi., 27. In the eighteenth chapter, the same 
expressions are used to denote the Law ; and specific 
statutes are referred to. He promises that blessings 
shall attend the man who "hath not defiled his neigh- 
bor^ wife " (Leviticus xviii., 20) ; nor hath come near 
to a woman when she is ritually unclean, — a technical 
term (Leviticus xviii., 19); nor hath "oppressed any" 
(Leviticus xxv., 14) ; "but hath restored to the debtor 
his pledge " (Exodus xxii., 26) ; "hath spoiled none by 
violence " (Leviticus vi., 2) ; " hath given his bread to 
the needy, and hath covered the naked with a gar- 
ment" (Deuteronomy xv., 7, 8); that "hath not given 
forth upon usury" (Exodus xxii., 25) ; that " hath exe- 
cuted true judgment between man and man " (Leviti- 
cus xix., 15). In chapter xi., 12, Ezekiel gives as a 
reason why so great punishments should fall upon 
these people that they " have not walked in the stat- 
utes nor executed the judgments " of the Lord, but 
have done after the manner of the heathen. If we 
look into the Law (Leviticus xviii., 4, 5), we shall find 
it declared that the people shall not do according to 
other people's laws and customs ; and it is commanded 
them, " Ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments." 
These references will suffice for this prophet, to show 
that he quotes the Law, and that he gives it the same 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 107 

names, in his references to it, which are given by other 
writers whose works we have examined.* 

5. From Ezekiel, I will pass to Jeremiah, who was 
his contemporary for a part of his life. Jeremiah went 
from Jerusalem into Egypt. Ezekiel, many years previ- 

* " It is difficult," says a writer in The Unitarian Review for November, 
1880, p. 431, "it is difficult to read his [Ezekiel's] pages written in Babylon, 
and believe that any important priestly legislation had preceded them. He does 
not quote from existing laws." In view of this unqualified denial from so re- 
spectable a source, I feel called upon to invite the reader's attention to farther 
p-oof that Ezekiel's writings give overwhelming evidence of his acquaintance 
with "existing laws." It is assumed from the character of the writer th.it 
no quibble is intended in the use of the word " quote." If it is meant that the 
name of the writer, and the chapter and verse in which the quotation may be 
found, are not mentioijed, then there is an instant end to the discussion. But, 
if it is meant that there are no clear quotations of statutes and phrases from the 
Pentateuch as definitely made as could be expected in a poetical address, then. 
I must take direct issue, and appeal to the judgment of the reader by for.ifying 
my previous references ; and the reader is especially requested to observe that 
the captivity of the people is ascribed to disobeying the law quoted. 

Examples: Ezekiel iv. , 14, "Behold, my soul hath not been polluted; for I 
have not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces ; neither came 
there abominable flesh into my mouth." Compare now the different laws on 
this subject: Exodus xxii., 31, "Neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of 
beasts"; Leviticus xvii., 15, "And he shall be unclean until the even"; 
Deuteronomy xiv , 3, "Thou shalt not cat any abominable thing" ; and Leviti- 
cus xxii., 8, "That which dieth of itse'f, or is torn, he shall not eat." These 
scattered laws are condensed by Ezekiel. Ezekiel iv., 16, reads, " I will break 
the staff of bread in Jerusalem ; and they shall eat bread by weight, and with 
care" ; Leviticus xxvi , 26, " When I have broken the staff of your bread, . . . 
they shall deliver you your bread by weight " ; Ezekiel v., 10, " The fathers shall 
eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers, . . . and 
the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds." Compare Leviti- 
cus xxvi., 29, "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your 
daughters"; and verse 33, "And I will scatter you among the heathen"; also 
Deuteronomy xxviii., 64, " The Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the 
one end of the earth even unto the other." This is another instance of Ezekiei's 
condensing separate threatenings into one. Ezekiel v., 12, " I will scatter a 
third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them " ; Leviti- 
cus xxvi., 33, "I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a 
sword after you"; Ezekiel xiv., 14, 15, " I will make thee waste, and a re- 
proach among the nations. ... It shall be a reprojch and a taunt, an instruction 
and an astonishment uuto the nations"; Leviticus xxvi., 31, "I will make 
your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, . . . and your ene. 



108 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

ously, went to Babylonia as a captive. The following 
remarkable quotation from the Pentateuch is found in 
Jeremiah iv., 23, " I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was 
without form and void" a phrase found only in Gene- 
sis i., 2. In chapter ii., 8, the prophet says, in the 

mies . . . shall be astonished at it." So Deuteronomy xxviii., 37, " Thou shalt be- 
come an astonishment, a proverb, and a by- word among all nations" ; Ezekiel v., 
17, "I will send upon you famine, and evil beasts, and they shall bereave 
thee"; Leviticus xxvi., 22, "I will also send wild beasts among you, which 
shall rob you of your children " ; Ezekiel vi., 4, 5, " I will destroy your high 
places, yo-ir altars shall be desolate and your images shall be broken, and I will 
cast down your slain before your idols, and I will lay the dead carcasses of the 
children of Israel before their idols " ; Leviticus xxvi., 30, "I will destroy your 
high places and cut down your images, and cast your carcasses upon the car- 
casses of your idols"; Ezekiel vi., 6, "The cities shall be laid waste, and the 
high places shall be desolate"; Leviticus xxvi., 31, "I will make your cities 
waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation " ; Ezekiel xiv., 8, " I will set 
my face against that man, . . . and will cut him off from the midst of my people ' ' ; 
Leviticus xvii., 10, " I will set my face against that soul, . . . and will cut him off 
from among his people " ; Ezekiel xiv., 15, " Wild beasts will desolate the land." 
So Leviticus xxvi., 22 ; Ezekiel xvi., 59, " Thou hast despised the oath in break- 
ing the covenant"; Deuteronomy xxix., 12, "That thou shouldest enter into 
covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath " ; verse 14, " Neither with 
you only do I make this covenant and this oath " ; Ezekiel xviii., 6. There is a 
special reference to the law respecting the relation of the sexes, which is found in 
Leviticus xviii., 19, 20, and xxiv., 18 ; Ezekiel xviii., 7, " And hath not oppressed 
any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge"; Exodus xxii., 26, "If thou 
take thy neighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it to him by that the sun 
goeth down " ; xxiii., 9, "Thou shalt not oppress a stranger " ; Ezekiel xviii., 20, 
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear 
the iniquity of the son" ; Deuteronomy xxiv., 16, "The fathers shall not be put 
to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the 
fathers"; Ezekiel xx., 6, "a land flowing with milk and honey"; Exodus 
iii., 8, " a good land, ... a land flowing with milk and honey" ; Ezekiel xx., it, 
" And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man 
do he shall live in them " ; Leviticus xviii., 5, "Ye shall keep my statutes and 
my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them " ; Ezekiel xx., 12, " I 
gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them " ; Exodus xxxi., 13, 
" My sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you " ; Ezekiel xx., 
13, "Then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to 
consume them"; Numbers xiv., 29, 32, 33, "So will I do to you: your car- 
casses shall fall in this wilderness" ; Ezekiel xx., 23, " I lifted up my hand unto 
them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 109 

name of the Lord, " They that handle the Law knew 
me not " ; for the priests and the prophets whose office 
it was to know the Law were both of them violating it 
by serving Baal. In chapter xviii., 8, the prophet 
complains, in a prayer to the Lord, of the boasting of 

disperse them through the countries." The threatening is recorded in Leviticus 
xxvi., 33, "I will scatter you among the heathen*'; Ezekiel xx., 31, "When 
ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire" ; Leviticus 
xviii., 21, " Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech." 
This chapter is largely the language of -the Levitical law: Ezekiel xxii., 7, 
" They have set light by father and mother " ; Deuteronomy xxvii., 16, '* Cursed 
be he that setteth light by his father or his mother" ; also, " They have dealt op- 
pression with the stranger " ; Exodus xxii., 21, "Thou shalt neither vex a stran- 
ger, nor oppress him " ; also, " In thee have they vexed the fatherless and the 
widow"; Exodus xxii., 22, "Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless 
child." In Ezekiel xxii., the language and phrases and sentences of the Pen- 
tateuch are so frequent as to forbid quotation. After one more quotation, 
I must refer the interested reader to the chapter itself. Verse 26 reads thus : 
" Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things : 
they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they 
showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes 
from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them " ; Leviticus xxii., 2, " Speak 
unto Aaron and to his sons, . . . that they profane not my holy name in those 
things which they hallow unto me" ; x., 10, "And that ye put difference between 
holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean." Here is certainly a clear 
reference to priests, to a ritual law, and the duty of observing it. There are not 
less than twenty distinct references to the law and passages from it in this 
chapter of only thirty-one verses. 

It would seem to most minds a sheer waste of time and patience to pur- 
sue this inquiry further, but one or two more passages demand attention : Ezek- 
iel xxiv., 7, " Her blood, . . . she poured it not upon the ground to cover it with 
dust " ; Leviticus xvii., 13, " He shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover 
it with dust." In Deuteronomy xii., 16, it reads, "Ye shall pour out the blood 
upon the earth as water," and nothing is said of " covering it with dust," show- 
ing that Ezekiel had the priestly law of Leviticus before him, or in mind, which, 
according to Kuenen's hypothesis, was not written till a century after his death! 
If the reader has interest enough to do it, and is not yet satisfied, he may com- 
pare Ezekiel xxviii., 24, with Numbers xxxiii., 55; and Ezekiel xxxiii., 15, with 
Exodus xxii., 4, Numbers v., 6, Leviticus xviii., 5; and Ezekiel xxxiii., 25, with 
Leviticus vii., 26; Ezekiel xxxiv., 25-27, with Leviticus xxvi., 6, 7; Ezekiel 
xxxvi., 3, 17, with Deuteronomy xxviii., 37, Leviticus xviii., 25; and Ezekiel 
xxxix., 23, with Deuteronomy xxxi., 17. But enough : I must hold my hand. 

I have taken pains to compare the frequency of Ezekiel' s use of the language 



tlO A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

the wicked, who say, " The Law shall not perish from 
the priest." In chapter xliv., 23, he upbraids the peo- 
ple because they have not " obeyed the voice of the 
Lord, nor walked in his Law, nor in his statutes, nor in 
his testimonies." And in the tenth verse he is still 
more explicit : speaking in the name of the Lord, he 
says, "Ye have not walked in my Law, nor in my stat- 
utes that I set before you and before your fathers.'" 
In the twenty-second verse, he says that on account of 
their sins their "land is a desolation and an astonish- 
ment and a curse," — words used in Leviticus xxvi., 32, 
to denote the punishment which should follow trans- 
gression. These are a specimen of the terms used by 
this prophet when he refers to the Pentateuch. The 
whole spirit and almost letter of Jeremiah's prophesy 
is based upon the Pentateuch. His promises and 
threatenings are all founded upon the laws therein con- 
tained. All the rites and ceremonies which he de- 
scribes are such as are found in "The Law." There 
is but one passage which appears to invalidate this 

in the law, and references to it and quotations from it, with that of four of our 
most celebrated preachers' reference to the gospel, or quotations from it. Dr. 
Dewey, in the Two Great Commandments, a volume of three hundred 
pages, uses the language of the Gospels (texts of sermons excepted) but forty- 
five times. Mr. Martineau, in Hours of Thought seco d series, uses the lan- 
guage of the Gospels twenty-five times. Dr. Channing, in the Perfect Life, 
uses the language of the Gospels eight times in two hundred pages. Dr. 
Walker, in Reason, Faith, and Duty, uses the language of the Gospels eighteen 
times in two hundred ptges; and in but two instances does he say he takes it 
from the Gospels, and in but very few instances do the others. 

Since this note was written, I learn {Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1881, p. 390) 
that Prof. R. Smend, in his recent work, The Prophet Ezekiel (Der Prophet 
Ezechiel), 1880, maintains that the Levitical law was developed from Ezekiel, 
and not Ezekiel's quotations taken fr m the law. Of any such hypothesis, the 
reading of Ezekiel is the swiftest and most conclusive confutation. Ezekiel's 
quotations are not only from a law already in existence, but from a law given to 
the fathers, and for not obeying which they were carried captive. 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. Hi 

conclusion. It is contained in chapter vii., 21-23: 
" Put your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat 
flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor com- 
manded them in the day that I brought them out of 
the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacri- 
fices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey 
my voice and I will be your God, and ye shall be my 
people." The state of mind in which the prophet ut- 
tered this passage must be considered, in order to un- 
derstand his meaning. " The children gather wood," 
says he, "and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women 
knead their dough to make cakes to the queen of 
heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings unto other 
gods," in the streets of Jerusalem. The flagrant viola- 
tion of the Law in offering these sacrifices to such vile 
gods in the streets of the city so fired his soul with in- 
dignation that he put the comparative value of sacrifices 
and an obedient heart in direct contrast with each 
other: "The Lord did not command sacrifices; he re- 
quired a pure heart." Another view is that the 
prophet here made a sharp distinction between what 
was commanded and what was only regulated. It is 
contended by some critics that sacrifices are regulated 
by the Law, not commanded by it, — they were already 
in existence, like circumcision.* Whatever view we may 
take of the prophet's meaning, we cannot understand 
him as looking upon sacrifices as offensive to God; for 
in chapter xvii., 26, in describing the great glory and 
pure worship of the blessed period which would come 
after their enemies were destroyed and God's kingdom 

* Leviticus i., 2., "Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, ij 
any man bring an offerirg unto the Lord, ye shall bring," etc. 



112 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

was established, he says, " They shall come from the cit- 
ies of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and 
from the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and 
from the mountains, and from the south, bringing burnt- 
offerings and sacrifices and meat-offerings and incense, 
and bringing sacrifices of praise unto the house of the 
Lord." The more probable interpretation is that which 
is founded upon the supposition that the prophet is 
asserting a strong negative to show the comparative 
value of sacrifices and the spirit in which they should 
be offered. But, admitting that we could adopt no in- 
terpretation which would reconcile this passage with 
others, it would not be reasonable to deny the asser- 
tion of a hundred passages because of the apparent 
counter assertion of one. His prophecy teaches most 
clearly that offering sacrifices in accordance with the 
regulations of the Pentateuch was a part of the na- 
tional worship, and shows, whatever was the origin of 
that book, that it was in existence in his time. This, 
indeed, is the only point which I am now endeavoring 
to establish. In Lamentations, it is said, chap, ii., 9, 
that " the Law is no more " ; that is, not regarded. 

6. Passing now to a still earlier period, we come 
to Isaiah who flourished about 730 B.C. The style 
of his poetry is much loftier than that of the prophets 
whom we have examined, and hence we should expect 
to find fewer explicit references to the statute-book of 
the nation. I do not speak too strongly, however, 
when I say that the prophecies of Isaiah are based 
upon the doctrines of the Pentateuch. Their tone and 
spirit are just as we should expect them to be, if Isaiah 
had made himself familiar with that book. In describ- 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. II3 

ing the future glory of the kingdom, in a passage taken 
from a still earlier prophet, he says, " For out of Zion 
shall go forth the Law" to be established among all 
nations. In the eighth chapter, he rebukes the people 
for going after false gods, " and to wizards that peep 
and mutter " ; and asks, " Should not a people seek 
unto their own God ? . . . To the Law and to the testi- 
mony ; if they speak not according to this word, it is 
because there is no light in them." Nothing can be 
clearer than that the prophet counsels the people to 
study the book of their own law instead of consulting 
wizards, if they wish to learn their duty. In chapter xlii., 
21, 24, the prophet declares that, notwithstanding the 
neglect which it has received, the Lord " will magnify 
the Law and make it honorable " ; and he gives as a 
reason why Jacob had been given for a spoil and Israel 
to robbers, that they " would not walk in the ways of 
the Lord, neither were obedient to his Law." Ge- 
senius says that the phrase, "I will make my judgment 
to rest for a light of the people " (chap, li., 4), refers to 
the Mosaic Law. It should be remarked concerning 
the last two passages that they are in that portion of 
Isaiah which has been assigned to a later date and an- 
other writer. In chapter xxiv., 5, it is affirmed that the 
people "have transgressed the laws, changed the ordi- 
nance, and broken the everlasting covenant." By 
these terms " The Law " is referred to in other books, 
and very probably they refer to it here. In the first 
chapter of his prophecy, Isaiah rebukes severely those 
who " trample the courts of the Lord," bringing their 
sacrifice with wicked hearts and bloody hands. He 
says to the people, if "ye be willing and obedient, ye 



114 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

shall eat of the good of the land." This is in conform 
ity with the Law, Deuteronomy iv., 30 ; viii., 20 ; and 
many other places. He speaks of their "new moons ' : 
and "appointed feasts." He asks where the people 
can be "smitten" again, since "from the sole of the 
foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it," 
with evident reference to Deuteronomy xxviii., 35, 
where it is said of the nation, if it sin, " The Lord shall 
smite thee . . . with a sore botch that cannot be healed, 
from the sole of thy foot to the top of thy head." He 
says to them, "Your country is desolate; your cities 
are burned with fire; your land — strangers devour it, 
and it is desolate," as it was foretold would be the case 
in Deuteronomy xxviii., where it is said, " The nation 
from far . . . shall eat the fruit of thy land " until it be 
"destroyed." "But," he continues, "if ye be willing 
and be obedient, ye shall consume the good of the 
land ; but, if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured 
with the sword ; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken 
it." In Leviticus xxvi., 5, the Lord says, " If ye walk 
in my statutes, ... ye shall eat your bread to the full " ; 
but, if ye will not hearken to me, I " will draw out a 
sword after you " (verse ^^) ; " my sword shall devour 
flesh " (Deuteronomy xxxii., 42). In the description 
which the prophet gives of the enemy which he will call 
to destroy his wicked people, there is evident allusion 
to Deuteronomy xxviii., 49, 50. Isaiah says (chap, v., 
26, 27), " He will lift up an ensign to the nations from 
far, and will hiss them from the end of the earth. . . . 
They shall come with speed swiftly." In Deuteron- 
omy, referred to above, Moses says, " The Lord shall 
bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. II 5 

the earth, as swift as an eagle flieth." These speci- 
mens must suffice to show how Isaiah's style abounds 
with words and phrases which are taken from the Pen- 
tateuch. They prove that the style of the old Law 
Book and its very words were imbedded in his mind so 
as to make a part of his thoughts. 

7. The prophet Micah was a contemporary of 
Isaiah. His short prophecy is based, in all its rebukes 
and promises, upon the laws and threatenings and 
promises made in the Pentateuch. In the closing verse 
of his prophecy, he declares that faithfulness and mercy 
will yet visit the people, " which," he says, addressing 
the Lord, "thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the 
days of old." These promises will be found in Gene- 
sis xii., 2 ; xxvi., 24; xxviii., 13; Deuteronomy xxx., 1- 
5. I will not pause to examine minutely this prophecy. 
It exhibits the same characteristics as does that of 
Isaiah ; and, as he was contemporary with that prophet, 
it is less important to present his allusions, mostly quite 
obscure, to the Law. And I pass on the more readily, 
since Dr. Kuenen, in his elaborate work on The Relig- 
ion of Israel, admits that the references of Micah are so 
numerous and so exact to the events recorded in the 
Pentateuch that "we must even suppose that he was 
acquainted with those narratives, unless appearances 
should tend to show that they were written or modified 
at a later date " (Vol. I., p. 103). I will therefore pro- 
ceed to a consideration of the prophecies of Hosea, 
Amos, and Joel, taking them up in order. 

8. Hosea (780 B.C.) says to the people (chap, iv., 6), 
"Thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God." Again, 
he says (chap, viii., 1), " They have transgressed my 



Il6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

covenant and trespassed against my Law," therefore 
" He shall come as an eagle against the house of the 
Lord." The reference is to Deuteronomy xxviii., 49, 
"The Lord shall bring a nation ... as swift as an 
eagle flieth." Speaking of Ephraim, in the name of 
the Lord, he says (viii., 12), " I have written to him 
the great things of my Law, but they were counted as 
a strange thing." One of the distinguishing features 
of the style of this book is the repeated use of the 
words "whore," "whoring," "whoredom," to signify 
desertion of the true God and worship of false gods. 
This phraseology is derived from the Pentateuch most 
obviously. In Exodus xxxiv., 15, 16; Leviticus xx., 5, 
6 ; Numbers xiv., 33 ; Deuteronomy xxxi., 16, and in 
numerous other places, these words are used to signify 
idolatry. Indeed, the style of Hosea is colored through 
a?id through with the style of the Books of Moses. I 
will commence with the first chapter and proceed with 
an examination of his style as far as is necessary for 
my purpose. The land is said (chap, i., 2) to have 
" committed a great whoredom." Leviticus xix., 29, 
" Lest the land fall to [" commit " \ the original word 
is the same as in Hosea] whoredom." In verse 10, it 
is said, " The number of the children of Israel shall be 
as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor 
numbered," which is a verbal quotation from the prom- 
ise made to Jacob (Genesis xxxii., 12), "I will make 
thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be num- 
bered for multitude." In the eleventh verse, the 
prophet says that the people " shall come up out of the 
land " of their captivity. This phrase is used repeat- 
edly in the Pentateuch when the deliverance from 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 1 7 

Egypt is spoken of, and therefore had great signifi- 
cance to the Jews. In chapter ii , 8, the prophet says, 
"She," Israel, " did not know that I gave her corn and 
wine and oil," a quotation from Deuteronomy vii., 13. 
where God says, " I will bless the fruit of thy land, thy 
corn and thy wine and thine oil." And, in the tenth 
verse, God says, " None shall deliver her out of my 
hand," a phrase taken from Deuteronomy xxxii., 39, 
"Neither is there any that can deliver out of my 
hand." In verse 11, we have mention of "her feast 
days," which are the Passover, Pentecost, and Tab- 
ernacles; her "new moons," Numbers xxviii., 11, 12; 
and "her Sabbaths," Leviticus xxiii., 3 ; "and all her 
solemn feasts." A very clear reference is made in the 
twelfth verse, in the word "rewards," meaning wages 
of whoredom, to Deuteronomy xxiii , 18. It is said 
in verse 17 that the Lord would take the "names of 
Baalim out of her mouth," which phrase is used in 
Exodus xxiii., 13, "make no mention of the names of 
other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." 
In chapter iv., 4, we read that reproof and rebuke are 
useless, for the "people are as they that strive with 
the priest." And how were they that strove with the 
priest? In Deuteronomy xvii., 12, we read that the 
" man that will not hearken unto the priest . . . shall 
die." There was reason, then, why no reproof should 
be given to the people, — they were past help. How 
clear is the reference to the Pentateuch in this pas- 
sage ! A very striking instance of quotation is found 
in chapter iv., 10. The prophet is describing the 
suffering that shall come upon the people for their 
sins; and he tells them, "They shall eat and not be 



Il8 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

satisfied " (c.v., " not have enough "). In Leviticus 
xxvi., 26, where the Lord threatens calamities if the 
people sin, he says, " When I have broken the staff of 
your bread, ... ye shall eat and not be satisfied," — a 
verbal quotation. In the same verse is a distinct ref- 
erence to Genesis xxviii., 14, and Leviticus xx., 20, 21 : 
"Theyshall commit whoredom, and shall not increase." 
The original word for "increase," " to break forth," is 
used in the promise to Jacob, " And thou shalt spread 
abroad ["break forth"] to the west and to the east," 
etc. This use of the word is peculiar to the Penta- 
teuch ; and the threatening of not increasing is con- 
formed to the passage referred to in Leviticus and 
many other places in the Law. In the thirteenth verse, 
the prophet accuses the people of sin, because they 
have done as wickedly as the nations which they were 
commanded to destroy : " They sacrifice upon the tops 
of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, 
under oaks and poplars and elms." In Deuteronomy 
xii., 2, where the practices of the nations are described, 
the same phrases are used, except that, in the last 
clause, the prophet has substituted specific names for 
"every green tree." In chapter v., 6, the prophet says 
it will not be with them now as it was of old, when 
they "go with their flocks and with their herds " to 
seek the Lord, for he will have withdrawn from them 
on account of their wickedness. In describing the sac- 
rifices which the people offered to the Lord, in the 
Pentateuch the phrase "with your flocks and with 
your herds " is very common. Why were " the princes 
of Judah like them that remove the landmark " 
("bound," c.v.), and upon whom the prophet declares 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 119 

that the Lord will " pour out his wrath like water " ? 
Because in Deuteronomy xxvii., 17, it is said, "Cursed 
be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark." This 
reference is too striking to admit of doubt. And the 
prophet continues, "Ephraim is oppressed and crushed 
[c.v., broken in judgment] because he forsook the 
Lord " ; just as it is declared it shall happen unto the 
nation, if they forsake God, in Deuteronomy xxviii., 33 : 
" Thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway." 
In chapter v., 15, and vi., 1, we read, " In their affliction 
they will seek me early," and say, " Come, let us return 
unto the Lord, for he hath torn and he will heal us ; he 
hath smitten and he will bind us up." This is a fulfil- 
ment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy iv., 30, " When 
thou art in affliction [c.v., tribulation], ... in the latter 
days, and thou turn to the Lord thy God " ; and in 
Deuteronomy xxxii., 39, " I kill and I make alive ; I 
wound and I heal ; neither is there any one that can 
deliver out of my hand." Compare with this Hosea 
v., 4, " I will tear, . . . and none shall deliver " (c.v., 
rescue). In chapter vii., 10, the people are reproved 
because, after all their afflictions, " they do not return 
to the Lord their God, nor seek him," as required in 
Deuteronomy iv., 29, 30. The declaration, " I will 
chastise them, as hath been proclaimed in their congre- 
gation " (c.v., "as their congregation hath heard "), chap- 
ter vii., 12, is to the point, as the laws were usually said 
to be proclaimed " to the congregation " in the Penta- 
teuch. And here seems to be an explicit reference to 
punishments which had been threatened to the people 
at that time. In chapter viii., 6, there is an apparent 
reference in the original to the calf which was burned at 



120 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

Horeb. The prophet says, " The calf of Samaria shall 
be broken in pieces" (made "kindlings" literally). 
In the twelfth verse there is the explicit declaration, 
" I have written to him the great things of my law " ; 
or, as it should be translated, " I have written for him 
many laws ; but they were counted as a strange thing." 
Here we have proof that the laws quoted were written, 
and these laws are found word for word in the Penta- 
teuch. In the next verse is quoted the remarkable 
prophecy in Deuteronomy xxviii., 68, " They shall re- 
turn to Egypt." In chapter ix., 4, in speaking of the 
calamity of the impending captivity, he says, " They 
shall not offer wine-offerings to the Lord ; . . . their 
sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners ; 
all that eat thereof shall be polluted." In Leviticus 
xix. is a full statement of the denied condition of 
all who are mourning. In the fifth verse, it is asked, 
"What will ye do in the solemn day [i.e., feast days 
generally], and in the day of the feast of the Lord ? " 
(i.e., of the Passover, or some other of the three great 
feasts), — showing that feast days were observed at this 
time in Israel. The historical allusions in this chapter 
are too numerous for quotation. The feast of the tab- 
ernacles was celebrated in Israel j for in chapter xii., 9, 
we read, " I will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, 
as in the days of the solemn feasts " (feast). In verse 
14, it is said of Ephraim, " He shall leave his blood 
upon him," which is a phrase used in the Law to show 
the penalty which hangs over the evil-doer, Leviticus 
xx., 9 : " He that curseth his father or his mother, his 
blood shall be upon him," i.e., he shall be put to death. 
But I must not dwell upon the writings of this 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 121 

prophet any longer. We find that he speaks of the 
Law, sometimes almost makes a formal quotation from 
it, and in almost innumerable instances makes use of 
its language. I have marked more than twice as many 
clear references to the Law as I have quoted. But, if 
these are not sufficient to convince the reader, no num- 
ber would be. They most clearly identify the Law 
which was "written," and with which Hosea was famil- 
iar, with the Pentateuch of Ezra, of the son of Sirach, 
of Josephus, and of Martin Luther. His prophecy is 
as full of allusions to the Pentateuch, and his style par- 
takes as much of its flavor, as the sermons of the Puri- 
tans do of the Bible ; and one would as soon think of 
denying that John Robinson or John Cotton had our 
New Testament as that Hosea had our Pentateuch. 
It is admitted that the ritual and priesthood were exist- 
ing in perfection, and that the Pentateuch was in the 
hands of Malachi substantially as we have it to-day, 
yet he does not refer to its contents or to the ceremo- 
nies of the ritual any more frequently than Hosea, who 
lived three hundred years before him. If Hosea makes 
as free use of it as Malachi, why is it not conclusive 
evidence that he had it ? This inference can be over- 
come only by very weighty objections. 

(9) I must make some examination of the writings 
of Amos, who was a little earlier than Hosea. In chap- 
ter ii., 7, our translation reads, " and turn aside the 
way of the meek " : it should be rendered, " wrest the 
judgment of the weak," which agrees with Exodus 
xxiii., 6, " Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy 
poor." An abominable sin is spoken of in the same 
verse, which the Lord says " profanes his holy name," 



122 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

— a verbal reference to Leviticus xx., 3 : I will set my 
face against that man who " profanes my holy name." 
The wicked people are said (verse 8) "to lay them- 
selves down upon clothes laid to pledge." Exodus 
xxii., 26, forbids this, and requires that "raiment taken 
to pledge " shall be delivered to the owner when " the 
sun goeth down." The phrase, verse 10, "and led you 
forty years in the wilderness," is a verbal quotation 
from Deuteronomy xxix., 5. The people are rebuked, 
verse 12, for giving "the Nazarites wine to drink." 
Why not ? In Numbers vi., 3, the Nazarites' vow to 
abstain from \yine is given. 

The fourth chapter of Amos is so filled with refer- 
ences to the Pentateuch that a specific enumeration of 
them would be impossible in this study. Not less 
than a dozen instances of the use of language to be 
found in the different books of the Pentateuch could 
be quoted. I must content myself with a condensed 
summary, leaving the reader who is interested in this 
examination to pursue it into its details at his leisure. 
" Bring your sacrifices every morning," Numbers xxviii., 
3, 4, " and your tithes after three years," Deuteronomy 
xiv., 28, which reads, "At the end of three years, thou 
shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase " ; a 
very clear reference. " Offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving 
with leaven," Leviticus ii., 11, "and publish the free 
offerings," Leviticus xxii., 18. "I have given you want 
of bread," Leviticus xxvi., 26, "yet have ye not returned 
to me, saith the Lord." This last phrase is used sev- 
eral times in this chapter, and has evident reference 
to Deuteronomy iv., 30, where the people are exhorted, 
in their troubles, " to turn to the Lord their God." " I 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 23 

have smitten you with blasting and mildew," Deuteron- 
omy xxviii., 22. " I have sent among you the pestilence, 
after the manner of Egypt," as predicted in Leviticus 
xxvi., 25; Deuteronomy vii., 15; xxviii, 27. In chap- 
ter v., 11, the prophet says, "Ye have built houses of 
hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them" ; Deuter- 
onomy xxviii., 30, where it is said, " Thou shalt build 
an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein." Further, 
the prophet says, "Ye have planted pleasant vineyards, 
but ye shall not drink wine of them " ; predicted in 
Deuteronomy xxviii., 39, " Thou shalt plant vineyards, 
. . . but shalt not drink of the wine." The prophet de- 
nounces them, because " they afflict the just, they take 
a bribe." Exodus xxiii., 8, Deuteronomy xvi., 19, declare 
"Thou shalt not wrest judgment, thou shalt not respect 
persons, neither take a gift" (bribe). In verse 17, he 
says, " I will pass through thee " as I passed through 
the land of Egypt on the dreadful night when the first- 
born were slain and you were preserved. Now you 
will be punished, and a great " wailing " will be heard 
among you, as a " great cry " was raised by Pharaoh 
and his servants. (Exodus xii., 30.) The Lord ex- 
presses his dislike (verses 21, 22) of their "feasts," 
their "solemn assemblies," their "burnt-offerings and 
meat-offerings," and of their " peace-offerings." (Num- 
bers xxix., 25 ; Leviticus xxiii., 36 ; Deuteronomy xvi.) 
The prophet accuses the oppressors of the people of 
being so greedy of gain as to say, chap, viii., 5, " When 
will the new moon be gone that we may sell corn, and 
the Sabbath that we may set forth [open] wheat ? " A 
remarkable resemblance exists in the original between 
the words marked in italics and those in Genesis xli., 



124 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

56, " And Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold 
unto the Egyptians." No " servile work " could be 
done on the new moon of the seventh month, or the 
beginning of the civil year. Leviticus xxiii., 24, 25. 
He further charges these greedy traffickers with " mak- 
ing the ephah small," Deuteronomy xxv., 14, "and the 
shekel great," Deuteronomy xxv., 13, "and falsifying 
the balances by deceit." Leviticus xix., 36, requires 
" just balances." When carried captive, the wicked 
people would not escape suffering, for the Lord says to 
them by the mouth of the prophet, chapter ix., 4, 
"Thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay 
them " (those in captivity), which is a reiteration of the 
threatening in Deuteronomy xxviii., 65, and Leviticus 
xxvi., 2)Z, " I will draw out a sword after you among the 
heathen." In the same chapter, eighth verse, the Lord 
says, " I will destroy it [Israel] from off the face of the 
earth," which is a verbal repetition of the punishment 
threatened in Deuteronomy vi., 15, "The Lord thy 
God . . . will destroy thee from off the face of the earth." 
These quotations from Amos make it evident that he 
was familiar with the language of the Pentateuch. He 
rebukes Israel for violating the laws therein contained, 
and writes precisely as if the contents of that book were 
as familiar to him as the contents of the gospel were to 
John Bunyan. He calls the book by the name which 
it has had through all succeeding years up to his time. 
In giving a general reason for the punishment which 
would come upon tl e people, he says, in chapter ii., 4, 
" They have despised the Law of the Lord, and have 
not kept his commandments," a direct reference to the 
threat in Leviticus xxvi., 15, where it is said, "If ye 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETRAL BOOKS. 1 25 

shall despise my statutes," the most terrible calamities 
shall fall upon you. The customs, rites, worship which 
the prophet describes are all identical with those spoken 
of in " The Law.*' 

It is important to remember that both Hosea and 
Amos prophesied in the kingdom of Israel. They 
addressed the rulers, princes, priests, and people of 
that nation as if they were familiar with the Law. They 
speak of them as keeping the feast days, the new 
moons, and the Sabbaths. Is it improbable that the 
people of Israel had a copy of the Law, whose contents 
are so fully stated in these prophecies ? It is further 
to be remembered that Amos was " no prophet," that 
is, by education, " nor the son of a prophet " ; he was 
a "shepherd and a gatherer of sycamore fruit." If, 
then, he was so familiar with " The Law," never hav- 
ing been educated in it, how much of its language must 
have been on the lips of those who had attended the 
Fchools of the prophets ? There is more reason than 
some scholars are willing to allow for referring the 
Samaritan Pentateuch to a much earlier age than is 
commonly assigned to it. It is by no means improb- 
able that copies of " The Law " existed in the northern 
kingdom before the captivity, and that the people who 
were left in the land had copies with them, and that it 
has been handed down among that people from age to 
age, to the present day. If such a supposition is rea- 
sonable, the existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch is 
evidence of the high antiquity of the Hebrew Penta- 
teuch. 

But I do not rest this argument on any such basis. I 
am tracing references to " The Law," the Pentateuch, 



r 26 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

back through the Hebrew writings that have come 
clown to us ; and we find abundant evidence of its exist- 
ence in the writings of the two prophets who were sent 
to prophesy to the kingdom of Israel. But this aside. 
We must pursue our inquiry still further. 

10. Next in order comes the prophecy of Joel, who 
was a little the predecessor of Amos, at least in the 
opinion of some scholars ; but he prophesied to the 
kingdom of Judah. 

The prophecy of Joel is very brief, covering but a 
few pages. The whole spirit of his prophecy is derived 
from "The Law." His promises and threatenings are 
all derived from those contained in " The Law." He 
says, "The meat-offering and the drink-offering is cut 
off from the house of the Lord ; the priests mourn." 
" The harvest of the field is perished, the river is dried 
up, the fig-tree languisheth ; . . . call a solemn assem- 
bly," for the " locust hath eaten " up the harvest. 
Compare with these expressions Deuteronomy xxviii., 
38-42. In the second chapter, the prophet directs 
them to call an assembly. " Blow ye the trumpet," says 
he. In Numbers x., 3, we find that this was the ap- 
pointed method of calling an assembly. He says, 
describing the locusts, " There hath not been ever the 
like, neither shall there be any more after it, even to 
the years of many generations." This is a clear ref- 
erence to Exodus x., 14, where, describing the locusts 
of the plague in Egypt, the writer says, " Before them 
there were no such locusts as they, neither after them 
shall there be such." In chapter ii., 13, the prophet 
exhorts the people to repent, assuring them that the 
Lord God "is gracious and merciful, slow to anger. 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 27 

and of great kindness " ; an assurance which he could 
well give, for, Exodus xxxiv., 6, the Lord himself de- 
scended in a cloud, and proclaimed, "The Lord God, 
merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in 
goodness and truth." The prophet further says that 
the Lord will leave a blessing behind him, " a meat- 
offering and a drink-offering." Most earnestly he im- 
plores the people "to blow the trumpet, to proclaim a 
solemn assembly, to appoint a congregation, ... to 
let the priests weep between the porch and the altar, 
and say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not their 
heritage to reproach, that the heathen should use a by 
word against them " (marginal reading). In Deuter- 
onomy xxviii., 37, the people are threatened, if they 
sin, with the punishment of becoming " a proverb and 
a by-word among all nations." The reference is cle?r. 
Joel's prophecy is filled with Mosaic terms, and with 
the spirit and letter of the Law. Let it be remem- 
bered that Hosea, Amos, and Joel, whose references 
to Deuteronomy are so numerous, wrote a century and 
more before Hilkiah forged it, according to Kuenen.* 
ii. The testimony of two more books yet remains 
to be examined, the Proverbs and Psalms. In Ecclesi- 
astes and Solomon's Song, we find nothing to our pur^ 
pose, nor should we expect to. Nor should we expect 
to find much light on our theme in the Book of Proverbs. 
The subject of the book forbids it. Yet even here are 
there some hints of the existence of the Pentateuch. 

* Yet, notwithstanding this evidence that the prophetic writings are saturated 
with the spirit and sprinkled all over with the phrases and ceremonies of the 
Pentateuch, a writer in the Unitarian Review for November, 1880, p. 427, asks 
in a tone of haughty challenge, " What reference to Mosaic law or Mosaic rites 
can ; ou find in any of the earlier prophets ? " " What appeal to their authority ? " 



128 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

King Lemuel's mother taught him, chapter xxxi., 5, that 
princes should not drink wine lest they "forget the 
Law, and pervert the judgment of any that are afflicted." 
Deuteronomy xxiv., 17, Exodus xxiii., 6, "Thou shalt 
not pervert judgment." In chapter xxviii., 4, 7, 9, " The 
Law" is spoken of. So also in chapter xxix., 18, we 
read, " He that keepeth the Law, happy is he," " but 
where there is no vision the people perish." Other 
passages of like character are found in the book which 
it is unnecessary to quote, as they add nothing to our 
argument. Davidson says, Vol. II., p. 342, "The Prov- 
erbs are ethical maxims deduced from the Mosaic Law 
an -l Divine Providence." The Book of Psalms con- 
tains lyric poems, for the most part, which were com- 
posed during a long period of the nation's existence. 
Some were probably composed before the time of 
David, many by him, and by his contemporaries and 
immediate successors, and some as late as after the 
return from captivity. If we could certainly select 
those of the earliest date, they would be much more to 
our purpose than those composed at a later period. As 
in many cases such a distinction cannot accurately be 
made, I shall quote from those which are more gener- 
ally conceded to be of the earlier class, after I have 
drawn a few illustrations from those of a confessedly 
later period. The seventy-eighth psalm is supposed to 
have been written much later than the time of David. 
It is an historical poem, and repeats the most prominent 
incidents recorded in the Pentateuch. It speaks dis- 
tinctly of the " covenant of God," and declares that the 
people refused in early times "to walk in his Law"; 
that "he established a testimony in Jacob, and ap 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 1 29 

pointed a Law in Israel," which he commanded the 
fathers to "make known to their children." Deuter- 
onomy iv., 9, vi., 7, xi., 19, require that the Law should 
be taught to the children. The use of the language of 
the Pentateuch in this psalm is so pervading that I 
must ask readers to examine it for themselves in con- 
nection with this argument. To make quotations is 
impossible. Psalm cxix. is a very artistic poem, con- 
structed with express reference to the Law, the statutes, 
the commandments, and the judgments of the Lord. 
Through one hundred and seventy-six verses, it labors, 
with all variety of phrase, to extol "The Law" of the 
Lord, and inculcate obedience to all its " statutes." 
In Psalm xcvii., the writer says that the Lord spake to 
his people " in the cloudy pillar ; they kept his testimo- 
nies and the ordinance that he gave them." In Psalm 
Ixxxix., 30-32, the writer, enumerating the calamities 
which shall rest upon the house of David, says, in the 
name of the Lord, " If his children forsake my Law, 
and walk not in my judgments; if they break my stat- 
utes, and keep not my commandments ; then will I visit 
their transgression with the rod." Moses is spoken of 
as one to whom God had made himself known, ciii., 7 ; 
cv., 26 ; cvi., 16, 23, 32. These psalms are also filled 
with the incidents and language of the Pentateuch. In 
Psalm xix. there is a comparison made between the in- 
struction given in the works of Nature and that which 
is given in " The Law of the Lord." " The Law of the 
Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the testimony of 
the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes 
of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the command- 
ment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The 



130 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

fear [by metonymy, that which teaches us the fear] of 
the Lord is clean, enduring forever ; the judgments of 
the Lord are true and righteous altogether." In Psalm 
xl., 8, we have a very clear statement of the existence 
of books in the time of David. " In the volume of the 
book it is written of me, . . . Thy law is within my 
heart." As it has been suggested that this may be a 
figurative reference to God's purposes, not to any literal 
volume, I do not press the inference that it refers to 
the Book of the Law, but simply say that it proves the 
existence of written books in the time of David ; and we 
have seen already that, I. Kings ii., 3, David charges 
Solomon to keep the "statutes and commandments and 
judgments and testimonies " of the Lord, " as it is writ- 
ten in the Law of Moses." The poem and the history 
agree. In Psalm i., 2, it is said that the delight of the 
good man " is in the Law of the Lord, and in his Law 
doth he meditate day and night." 

These references to the Pentateuch, under the same 
names which we have found in use from the time of 
Paul and the Son of Sirach, are proof of the existence 
of the same work which Paul and the Son of Sirach 
used, unless some proof can be brought that it was 
remodelled between these periods. Of such a trans- 
formation, history does not record a syllable : therefore 
the work is the same as that to which David and the 
Psalmists alluded, as that which Paul and the Son of 
Sirach used, unless internal evidence, derived from the 
book itself, can be brought to show the contrary. To 
that internal evidence, I shall attend in due time. I 
now confine myself to the historical evidence. 

But we find not only the old names, but also the 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 131 

style of the Pentateuch introduced into the Psalms, its 
facts alluded to, its rites mentioned. I will notice a 
few of the latter. In Psalm xix., i, there is the same 
distinction between the heavens and the firmament as 
in Genesis i. The word "firmament" is a peculiar 
one, and is doubtless used by the Psalmist on that 
account. Psalm xxxiii., 6, 7, teaches us that " By the 
word of the Lord v/ere the heavens made " (Genesis i., 
14, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firma- 
ment"), "and all the host of them by the breath of 
his mouth " (Genesis ii., i, " Thus the heavens and 
earth were finished, and all the host of them "). " He 
gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap " 
(Genesis i., 9, "And God said, Let the waters ... be 
gathered together into one place "). In Psalm Ixxxi., 
3-5, there is a direct reference to the time when a stat- 
ute there named was enacted : " Blow the trumpet in 
the new moon " (Numbers x., 10, " In the beginnings of 
your month [i.e., new moons], ye shall blow with the 
trumpets "), "in the time appointed, on our solemn feast 
day 1 for this is a statute for Israel and a law of the 
God of Jacob. This he ordained . . . when he went 
out through [of] the land of Egypt." Verse 6, " I 
removed from his shoulder the burden" (Exodus i., 
11). In Psalm xv., 3-5, we read that a good man 
" backbiteth not with his tongue" (Leviticus xix., 16), 
"nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor" (Exo- 
dus xxiii., 1). " He putteth not out his money to usury " 
(Exodus xxii., 25), "nor taketh a reward against the 
innocent" (Exodus xxiii., 8). "He sweareth to his 
own hurt, and changeth not " (Numbers xxx., 2). 
These references are all too distinct to be mistaken. 



132 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

" Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings " are spoken of in 
xl., 6; li., 19; Ixvi., 13, 15 : "I will go into th) house 
with burnt-offerings ; . . . I will offer unto thee burnt 
sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams." Psalm 
cxxxiii., the "precious ointment that ran down on 
Aaron's beard " refers to his anointing (Leviticus viii., 
12), where Moses is said to pour the "anointing oil " 
on Aaron's head. 

It is not necessary to accumulate these quotations 
any further. It is evident that, upon the supposition of 
the existence and familiar use of the Pentateuch by 
the writers of the Psalms, we could not expect to find 
more frequent allusions to the book, nor more evident 
use of its words and phrases, than we do find. Hence, 
the argument is as full and cogent from this quarter as 
is required for my purpose. 

I have now closed my examination of the historical 
and poetical writings of the Jewish nation back to the 
time of David. And, all through both classes of writ- 
ings, we find not only the title of the Pentateuch 
named in references to it, but we also find constant 
use of its style, and allusion to its rites, ceremonies, 
and laws. I hesitate not to say that no writing which 
has come down to our day from a remote antiquity can 
show such an array of historical evidence attesting its 
age as the writings of the Jews furnish to the existence 
of the Pentateuch in the time of David. The book 
which David referred Solomon to as the "Law of 
Moses," in which were " written the statutes, com- 
mandments, judgments, and testimonies of the Lord,'' 
is the book which now lies open before me, or else I 



EVIDENCE FROM THE POETICAL BOOKS. 133 

have no reason or right to speak of the history of 
Thucydides as being in our hands. Those who are 
not accustomed to inquiries of this kind may not be 
aware of the superior amount and quality of the evi- 
dence which can be adduced in favor of the existence 
of the Pentateuch in the time of David, over that 
which can be produced in favor of the early origin of 
any other work of remote antiquity which has come 
into our hands, and which, nevertheless, we accept as 
being sustained by all the evidence which, under the 
circumstances, could be expected. 

Let us remember, too, the period at which we have 
arrived. We are within four hundred years or less of 
the time in which Moses lived, who is supposed by 
David to have written these laws. The golden age of 
Hebrew literature is fixed at this period. A glorious 
temple was to be erected in which the worship of 
Jehovah, as prescribed in "The Law," could be 
offered. The schools of the prophets had been send- 
ing out scholars into all parts of the land for a hun- 
dred years. It is incredible that a book containing the 
fundamental laws of such a nation, on an obedience to 
which rested their national destiny, could have been so 
universally referred to their great law-giver, if indeed 
he had no hand in its composition. Had we no frag- 
ments of history relating to the period between David 
and Moses, we could not hesitate to refer the book to 
him to whom it was referred at this period. The men 
of that age were abundantly capable of determining 
such a question. They were under the most impera- 
tive obligation to determine it correctly, and there is 
no more reason, historically, to suppose them to be 



134 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

mistaken than we have to suppose that the English 
monarchs and scholars are mistaken in referring the 
Doomsday Book to the time of William the Con 
queror. 

SECTION IV. FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 

As far as external historical evidence is concerned, 1 
might pause here. But there are some earlier writings, 
some portions of which were composed probably before 
the time of David, or during his reign, — namely, 
the book of Judges ; and some which, though relating 
to the times previous to him, were not composed till 
a later period, — namely, the Books of Samuel. 

To understand the value of the evidence rendered 
by these books to the antiquity of the Pentateuch, a 
word is necessary respecting their age and contents. 
The Book of Joshua was written before the close of 
the reign of Solomon, if we can rely upon the state- 
ment made in chapter xvi., 10, where it is said, "The 
Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites [in Gezer] 
unto this day." But, in I. Kings ix., 16, we read 
that Pharaoh "took Gezer, burned it with fire, slew 
the Canaanites, and gave it as a present to his 
daughter, Solomon's wife." The .book may have been 
composed earlier, even in the reign of Saul, or during 
the life of Samuel. There is nothing in the style or 
contents of the book which requires a later author. 
The contents of the book are such as rather to forbid 
than admit any specific quotations from the Pentateuch, 
consisting, as they do in the first half, of a description 
of passing over Jordan, and of the battles of the 



FROM DAv'ID TO MOSES. 135 

conquest, and, in the last half, of a condensed state- 
ment of the boundaries of the tribes and their cities.* 
The Book of Judges tells us, in chapter i., 21, that 
"the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in 
Jerusalem unto this day," which shows, if the passage 
can be relied upon, that the book, or the main part of 
it, must have been written before the end of David's 
reign, since in II. Samuel, chapter v., 6-&, we learn 
that David drove the Jebusites out of Jerusalem, and 
took the stronghold of Zion and dwelt in it. A passage 
in the appendix of the book, which was added at a 
later date, chapter xviii., 30, would probably place this 
addition as late as 721 B.C. "The day of the captivity 
of the land" is spoken of. There is nothing in the 
language or contents of the body of the book to forbid 
its composition in the early years of the monarchy, 
since its descriptions of the anarchical condition of 
the people have very much the appearance of an apol- 
ogy or good reason for a stronger and consolidated 
government, as well as of an illustration of the peril of 
" doing evil in the sight of the Lord." The subject of 
both the book and its appendix is such as not to require 
or even permit many references to the Pentateuch, 
made up as it is of battles and exploits of heroes and 
heroines, and devoting four chapters to the freaks and 

•Davidson says(Zntro. O. T., Vol. I., p. 415): "The ecclesiastical state of 
the people under Joshua appears to have been in accordance with the divine 
law. There was the ark of the covenant, priests, a high priest Eleazer, Leviti- 
cal cities. Circumcision and the passover were observed. The tabernacle was 
set up, and the congregation assembled beside it. [Dr. Oort, Bible for Learners, 
says, "The tabernacle never really existed except in the ima4"ation of the 
writer " (of Exodus), who lived after the captivity.] The Reubenites, Gadites, and 
half-tribe of Manasseh 'kept all that Moses, the servant of God, commanded 
them.' " 



136 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

follies and feats and gallantries of the renowned ath- 
lete, Samson. 

The Books of Samuel, down to the reign of David, 
appear to be closely connected with the succeeding his- 
tory, and very probably were the production of the au- 
thor of the history of that reign, whose writings were 
used by the author of the Book of Kings, who wrote at 
the commencement of the captivity, 586 B.C. During 
this tumultuous period of establishing the monarchy, 
but little reference would be made, in brief annals, to 
rituals and customs. Weightier and novel matters 
would press upon the writer's attention. And in all 
these writings we cannot rely upon any stronger evi- 
dence of the age of the Pentateuch than is furnished 
by the opinion of the age in which they were written, 
as expressed by their authors. It is true that they did 
not rely wholly upon tradition. They had, apparently, 
in their hands scraps of records and songs which fur- 
nished some written testimony to the customs and laws 
of this period, and to the existence of the Mosaic rit- 
ual. These obscure references and passing hints we 
shall do well to notice and weigh. 

In I. Samuel i., 3, we read that Hannah and her hus- 
band, a hundred years before the time of David, "went 
up yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of 
hosts, in Shiloh," where the tabernacle was. In chap- 
ter i., 21, 22, the writer tells us that the journey was 
repeated the next year by the father alone, and that 
the second year the child Samuel was with them. This 
"yearly" journey was required by " The Law" at the 
feast of the passover, but we do not read of it again in 
the book, showing how many things customary are not 



FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 137 

named. We read of the offering of " burnt-offerings " 
and " peace-offerings " at different times anci at differ- 
ent places, since no spot had been selected as the per- 
manent resting-place of the ark. There are, also, found 
some phrases in the Books of Samuel which the his- 
torian evidently took from the Books of Moses ; but as 
he wrote at as late a period as is covered by some of 
the books already examined, and as his style would 
only prove the existence of the Pentateuch when he 
wrote, I will not occupy much space by making quota- 
tions. In I. Samuel, chapter xii., 14, Samuel says to 
the people, " If ye will not rebel against the command- 
ment of the Lord," it will be well with you ; "but if ye 
rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall 
the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was against 
your fathers." This is obviously said in reference to 
the Law, for " the commandment," " the testimony," 
are often used for the Pentateuch. The writer of the 
Book of Judges, chapter hi., 4, says, "They [the na- 
tions not conquered] were to prove Israel, ... to know 
whether they would hearken unto the commandments 
of the Lord, which he had commanded their fathers by 
the hand of Moses •" In Joshua i., 7, 8, the Lord is rep- 
resented as thus addressing Joshua : "Be thou strong 
and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do 
according to all the Law which Moses, my servant, com- 
manded thee. . . . This Book of the Law shall not depart 
out of thy mouth, . . . that thou mayest do all that is 
written therein." In chapter viii., 30, 31, we read that 
"Joshua built an altar, ... as Moses the servant of the 
Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written 
in the Book of the Law of Moses" In chapter xxiii , 6, 



138 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

we read of what "is written in the Book of the Law 
of Moses"; and in chapter xxiv., 26, we read that 
" Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of 
God." 

Such are the names given in these early annals to 
the book or code by which the people were governed. 
Let us now see if the references to it or the customs of 
the period render it certain that our Pentateuch is 
intended by these names. The priests are represented 
in Joshua as " bearing the ark," and the " ark of the 
covenant," and the "ark of the Lord," and "the ark 
of the testimony " ; and " Phinehas, the son of Aaron," 
is said to have " stood before the ark of the covenant 
of God in those days," in the Book of Judges ; and in I. 
Samuel it is spoken of ten times, and in II. Samuel five 
times. In Joshua xviii., 1, "the tabernacle of the con- 
gregation" is said to "be set up at Shiloh," and it is 
mentioned again xxii., 19 ; and three times it is spoken 
of in Samuel. The " curtains " of the dwelling-place of 
the ark are mentioned in II. Samuel vii., 2, and in the 
sixth verse the " tent and tabernacle " are spoken of, 
describing the original tabernacle accurately, the " tent ? ' 
signifying the outward covering of skins and cloth of 
goat's hair, and " the tabernacle " signifying the " cur- 
tains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and 
scarlet," Exodus xxvi., 1, 14. This passage shows how 
carefully the material and form of the ancient taber- 
nacle had been preserved through all ages and vicissi- 
tudes, amid repairs and renewals down to the time of 
David, a period of about four hundred years, when we 
find him ambitious to erect a more imposing struct- 
ure for the administration of the ritual. We read, in 



FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 139 

I. Samuel xxi., 6, of the " shew bread " which was in the 
tabernacle at Nob, chapter xxii., n, and which was 
" hallowed bread," of which David and his men were 
permitted to eat after much deliberation, as it was 
sacredly set apart for the priests, Leviticus xxiv., 9. 
In I. Samuel, during times bordering upon those of the 
Judges, we read frequently of " offerings " and " sacri- 
fices," offered apparently at places where the " taber- 
nacle " was from time to time located, and sometimes 
on altars built for the occasion. 

These records of religious observances are quite fre- 
quent, though brief ; but they are hints of what existed 
and was common, as the "yearly sacrifice " to which the 
people are said to go up is mentioned specially but three 
times. And it is to be remembered that these were 
turbulent times, and the writer of Judges does not 
dwell upon the years of peace, but describes almost 
exclusively the insurrections and forays and personal 
exploits of the time. We read of " priests " in Joshua 
and Judges and Samuel, and of their presence at the 
place of the tabernacle. There is no evidence which is 
decisive that any service which was allotted by the Law 
to a priest was performed by any other person. In the 
case of Samuel, there are two or three instances in 
which he may have offered sacrifice ; but it is by no 
means clear that even in those a priest was not in 
attendance, though not spoken of. But, granting that 
Samuel did offer sacrifices two or three times, it does 
not follow that it was lawful, but rather that he violated 
the Law. And, further, if we can rely upon the record, 
the relation of Samuel to the priesthood was unique ; 
and he may have felt authorized to act as a priest in 



140 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

certain contingencies, if he did so. In either view 
of his action, it does not furnish even a presumption 
against the existence of the ritual ; much less does it 
furnish an argument against its existence. 

Did I not fear that I should utterly exhaust the pa- 
tience of my readers, I should like to refer to some yet 
more obscure indications of the existence of the Pen- 
tateuch contained in these fragmentary sketches of the 
earliest anarchical times, and yet so exact as to com- 
mand attention. I must satisfy my desire to give a 
specimen of them : I. Samuel i., n, "And there shall 
no razor come upon his head " ; a literal statement of 
the Law of the Nazarite, Numbers vi., 5. Chapter L, 
24, she " took three bullocks and an ephah of flour " 
for her offering ; just the right proportion of flour pre- 
scribed to a bullock, Numbers xxviii., 12. Chapter 
ii., 2, " Neither is there any rock like our God," is 
literally taken from Deuteronomy xxxii., 30. The 
departure from the ritual by the wicked sons of Eli is 
described in chapter ii., 13-15, in not " burning the fat " 
and the " sodden meat " which were prescribed in Le- 
viticus vi., 28, and vii., 31-35. In verses 18, 19, the 
child Samuel's " linen ephod " is mentioned, and his 
"little coat" (robe), which was the priest's garment 
worn under the " ephod," both described in Exodus 
xxviii., 6, 31. In chapter iii., 3, we read of the " lamp 
which burnt " in the place " where the ark of God was," 
Exodus xxvii., 21. In chapter iii., 14, we read of the 
" sacrifice " (zabach) and " offering " {mincah) required 
by the Law in many places. I have already alluded to 
the frequency with which the " ark of the covenant " 
is mentioned. Chapter vi., 6, speaks of the " harden- 



FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 141 

ing " of the people's hearts as the heart of " Pharaoh 
was hardened," Exodus xii., 31. In chapter vii., 9, we 
read that " Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered it 
for a burnt-offering wholly to the Lord," Leviticus xxii., 
7. Chapter viii., 3, Samuel's " sons took bribes and 
perverted judgment," Exodus xxiii., 8. Chapter ix., 24, 
"And the cook took up [heaved up] the shoulder, and 
set it before Saul," Exodus xxix., 27. Chapter x., 25, 
" Samuel wrote in a book the manner of the kingdom," 
Deuteronomy xvii., 18, 19. Chapter xx., 5, 6, " To-mor- 
row is the new moon," said David, " let me go ... to 
Bethlehem, for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all 
the family," Numbers x., 10; xxviii., n. Verse 26, 
"Saul . . . thought something had befallen him [David], 
he is not clean ; surely he is not clean," Leviticus vii., 
20, 21. Chapter xxviii., 3, " And Saul put away those 
that had familiar spirits and wizards out of the land," 
Deuteronomy xviii., 11, 12. Chapter xxx., 7, 8, "And 
David said to Abiathar, the priest, bring me hither the 
ephod [in which were the Urim and Thummim]. . . . 
And David inquired of the Lord," Numbers xxvii., 21. 
Frequently the " Lord " is said to be " inquired of " in 
the life of David. In II. Samuel vi., 2-17, we read of 
the " ark of the Lord and the cherubim," and of the 
death of Uzzah for touching it, Numbers iv., 15. 

In Judges i., 20, we read that "they gave Hebron 
unto Caleb, as Moses said," Numbors xiv., 24; Joshua 
xiv., 9, 13. In chapter ii., 17, 20, 22, the people are 
charged with going "a whoring after other gods, and 
turning quickly out of the way which their fathers 
walked in, . . . transgressing my covenant, which their 
fathers did keep" (chap, iii., 6); and the children of 



142 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

Israel "took their [Canaanites'] daughters to be their 
wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and 
served their gods," and, verse 4, did not "hearken unto 
the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded 
the fathers by the hand of Moses." Read the Law, 
Exodus xxxiv., 15, 16. The "ephod," in which were 
the Urim and Thummim, is spoken of as if essential 
even in forbidden forms of consultation, viii., 27 ; 
xvii., 5; xviii., 14, 17, 18. In xiii., 19, we read that 
" Manoah took a kid with a meat [meal] offering, and 
offered it upon a rock to the Lord." This kind of 
offering is required, Numbers xv., 24. " Burnt-offer- 
ings " and "peace-offerings" are mentioned in xiii., 16; 
xx., 26; xxi., 4. "The ark of the covenant" is spoken 
of, xx., 27. "The house of God in Shiloh," that is the 
"tabernacle," is spoken of in xviii., 31, and very prob- 
ably also in XiX., 18; xx., 18, 26, 31; and xxi., 2. 
Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, "stands before the 
ark," xx., 28. "A man plucked off his shoe, and gave 
it to his neighbor to confirm " a bargain respecting mar- 
riage under peculiar circumstance, as reported in Ruth 
iv., 8. The Law is found in Deuteronomy xxv., 9. A 
reference is also made in iv., 12, to Genesis xxxviii., 29. 
But I must refrain, or patience will be utterly ex- 
hausted. I wished to quote some of my notes on 
Joshua, especially those including passages where it is 
said that something was done "as Moses the servant 
of the Lord commanded," as, in chapter xi., 12, 
"Joshua smote all the cities of those kings and all the 
kings of them with the edge of the sword, and he 
utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant oi the 
Lord commanded." The command of Moses is in 



FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 1 43 

Numbers xxxiii., 52, and Deuteronomy vii., 2, "Thou 
shalt smite them and utterly destroy them ; thou shalt 
make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto 
them." I leave them all, and close here the direct 
historical or external evidence of the antiquity of the 
Pentateuch. Fragmentary and obscure as many of 
these notices and references are in these early books, 1 
submit that they are as numerous and as explicit as any 
reasonable critic would expect to find. I confess to my 
own surprise at finding so many. Only Hebraists can 
estimate the loss I feel in not being able to make these 
quotations from the original language, that their force 
might be fully estimated.* 

I cannot better meet the objection which is raised 
against the existence of the Mosaic ritual during the 
time of the Judges and Samuel, founded upon the infre- 
quent mention of it and of its observance, than by refer- 

*Much has been made by Kuenen, Graf, Prof. Smith, and others, of the use 
of the words, " the priests, the Levites," in Deuteronomy xvii., 9, 18, and else- 
where, without the copulative conjunction, "and," as if it proved that there 
was no distinct portion of the tribe of Levite priests before the captivity. But 
the same formula is used after the captivity (Nehemiah x , 28, 34 ; xi., 20; I. 
Chronicles ix., 2; II. Chronicles v., 5; xxiii., 18; xxx., 27; Isaiah lxvi., 21; 
Jeremiah xxxiii., 18), showing that, however it is to be explained, it certainly 
does not mean that all Levites were priests or could be ; but undoubtedly it 
meant that all priests were Levites of the tribe of Levi, as the history testifies. 
There are only twenty-four places in the Old Testament where this phrase is 
u: ed, and these may weli be explained by the not unusual grammatical asyn- 
detic construction, where "conjunctions which serve to connect words and 
phrases are omitted," as in Genesis xxxi., " yesterday [and] the day before " : 
Judges xix., 2, "a year [and] four months"; Habakkuk iii., n, "sun [and] 
moon"; Nahum iii., 1," it is full of lies [andj robbery " ; Isaiah lxiii., 11, " Moses 
[and] his people"; Proverbs xxii., 21, "words [and] truth"; Zechariah i., 13, 
" words [and] consolations " ; Exodus xxiv., 5, " offerings [and] peace-offerings." 
These examples must suffice. To build up a theory of the Jewish priesthood on 
this phrase used but twenty- four times in opposition to the clear and explicit decla- 
rations of both the law in the Pentateuch and the testimony of subsequent history 
is erecting a pyramid on its apex. 



144 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

ring to the early history of the colony of Plymouth. 
That the Pilgrims had the Bible and ministers and 
churches and regular services on Sunday, everybody 
knows. William Bradford, for many years governor of 
the colony, wrote a history of it down to 1646, or for 
twenty-six years after the colony landed at Plymouth. 
It makes an octavo volume of four hundred and forty- 
four pages. I have looked through its pages to see 
how he treats the subject of religion, — its ministry, its 
church, its ordinances, its Bible. I may have over- 
looked some instances in which he speaks of them, but 
I am confident they can be but few. He mentions 
"the Lord's day''* but twice; he speaks of "ministers" 
but fifteen times; of the "church" but twenty times; 
of "baptism" but once; and in every instance very 
briefly. Four times he speaks of the "Scriptures"; 
four times of "the word of God"; and once of "the 
infallible word of God," — evidently meaning in all 
these cases the Bible. There are repeated quotations 
from the Bible, and its language is used frequently; and 
sometimes the book and the chapter and verse are men- 
tioned from which the quotation is taken. And the 
"gospel" is spoken of ten times as if the New Testa- 
ment was meant in distinction from the Old ; and once 
"the pure Testament of Christ" is named, with evident 
reference to the New Testament. There is one refer- 
ence to " neglecting hearing the word on the Lord's 
clay." The choice of a "pastor" is spoken of three or 
four times. Two instances of setting apart a " day of 
humiliation " are recorded. " Taxing for preaching " is 
once spoken of. And yet this history is written in a 
religious spirit, and " God's providence " is mentioned 



FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 145 

on almost every page. Now, the very brief Book of 
Judges covers a period ten times as long as Bradford's 
history does, and would give room for ten times less ref- 
erence to the ritual than Bradford makes to the Pil- 
grims' ecclesiastical affairs, were the book as large as 
Bradford's ; but, if its size is taken into the account also, 
there would be eighty times less chance in Judges to 
treat of religious rites and books than in Bradford ; and 
if Bradford does not speak of the Bible in any phrase- 
ology, under any name, but about sixteen times, how 
many times could we expect Judges to speak of the 
"Law of Moses," on the supposition that it was used 
as freely and observed as scrupulously during that 
period as the Bible was by the Pilgrims ? An answer to 
this question gives the weight of the objection named 
above, and it is found to be of no value. And, in farther 
confirmation of this estimate of the little weight to be 
attached to this objection, another cause of the infre- 
quent reference to the Law and its ritual is found in Dr. 
Kuenen's Religion of Israel. He says (Vol. II., p. 293), 
"A temporary abeyance of the ritual legislation is not 
inconceivable" under "kings indisposed" to regard it. 
Much more, then, may we suppose that its observance 
was frequently held in "abeyance" during the stormy 
times of the Judges, and the convulsions which at- 
tended the establishment of the monarchy. 

If "amidst arms laws are silent," we should not ex- 
pect to hear anything of ritual observances during the 
tumults of the Judges. 

This would be the place to examine the evidence 
which the Book of Deuteronomy furnishes of the ex- 
istence of the Book of the Law, the ritual code, were 



I46 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

it not that the references to it are so intimately con- 
nected with the internal evidence, the second division 
of my Study, as to make its examination at that time 
most convenient and suitable. It must suffice, there- 
fore, to say here and now that the existence of some 
such book or code is clearly implied, if not necessi- 
tated, by the laws quoted and amended, and the cere- 
monies modified and the demands withdrawn. These 
will be fully examined and illustrated in due time, and 
are of such a nature and so numerous as to bind all 
the previous historical evidence back to a date as early 
as the death of Moses. 

We have now traced back through a period of over 
a thousand years notices of a work containing the laws 
which governed the Jews. We find that the various 
names by which it is called, beginning with the New 
Testament, in all the works which have come down to 
our time, are repeated in an unbroken series back to 
the time of Joshua. "The Law," "The Law of 
Moses," "The Law of the Lord," "The Book of the 
Law," "The Book of the Law by the hand of Moses," 
"The Book of the Law of the Lord," "The statutes 
and commandments of the Lord," are used as names 
to designate the Pentateuch from the days of Paul to 
the days of Joshua. And, further than this, we have 
found that the passages which are quoted by all this 
series of writers from the book referred to under those 
names are contained in the Pentateuch, and are often 
quoted with verbal exactness, even when the language 
of the Pentateuch is peculiar. And, still further, we 
have found that peculiar words and phrases are used 



FROM DAVID TO MOSES. x 47 

frequently in all these writings, which are most obvi- 
ously taken from "The Law," showing that it was a 
book whose contents were as familiar to these writers 
as the language of the New Testament is to the preach- 
ers of our day. In a word, we have found all the evi- 
dence that could be expected, and vastly more than is 
found for the antiquity of any other writing of an age 
even much less remote. 

The whole atmosphere of these books is fragrant 
with the incense which rose from the Law, and the 
whole elaborate, magnificent ritual of the nation is 
found imbedded in it. Our Pentateuch did exist in 
their day. It must have existed, or all historical evi- 
dence is false and worthless. 

It is hardly necessary to allude to an objection to the 
early origin of the Pentateuch which was raised by a 
former class of critics, and pressed with great vehe- 
mence. It was maintained that the art of writing, even 
if known, was not sufficiently advanced to produce 
such works as the Pentateuch as early as the time of 
Moses. Modern discoveries, however, in Egypt and 
Chaldea and Babylonia have removed all doubt that 
writing was common in all these countries as early as 
the age of Moses. The walls of the tombs and tem- 
ples of Egypt are adorned with representations of 
scribes engaged in writing; and a room has been 
opened in one of the great palaces which is called a 
"library," showing that works were collected for use. 
Cloth, papyrus, skins, and stones were used for engrav- 
ing and writing. Rituals and financial documents of 
almost every kind are found among the relics in the 
tombs. In Chaldea and Babylonia, also, writings are 



148 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

found on tablets of hardened clay, showing that poems 
were written in the Ur of Abraham before he was born. 
The Legends of Izdubar are about half as long as the 
Iliad, and they were written five centuries before the 
birth of Moses. And from that remote date, 2000 
B.C., down, we have writings of every kind, — accounts, 
deeds, biographies, histories, legends, etc., — demon- 
strating not only the possibility, but the probability 
that the great law-giver of Israel would commit his 
ritual and code to writing, as it is affirmed in the Pen- 
tateuch that he did. But I have lingered on this effete 
objection longer than its inherent weight justifies ; yet 
as an illustration of the baselessness of many other 
objections, and of the confirmation of the antiquity of 
the Pentateuch found in the abundance of books and 
writings of various kinds of a far earlier date even, it 
seemed necessary to say as much as this respecting it. 
It may be expected that something will be said at 
this point respecting the marvellous events which are 
recorded in the historical portions of the Pentateuch. 
As this Study is not exegetical, but historical, such an 
inquiry does not fall within my subject; at least, I have 
no occasion to treat of these marvellous events any 
further than their record affects the question of the 
age and origin of the Pentateuch. The historical book 
of Genesis closes at least two centuries before the time 
of the Hebrew law-giver, and is evidently composed of 
such traditions, recorded and oral, as had come down 
to his time. We have no conclusive proof that the 
wonderful things there recorded are true, or that they 
ever transpired; and the contents of the book do not 
in the slightest degree weigh against the opinion that 



FROM DAVID TO MOSES. 1 49 

it was written or compiled in the Mosaic age, while 
the "Archaic Language " was in use. I enter into no 
speculation on this subject.* . . . Were these wonderful 
events accurately recorded, and were they stupendous 
miracles, the antiquity of the Pentateuch would not be 
in the least affected by it, for that is proved in an en- 
tirely independent manner. Almighty power is amply 
equal to doing what is here recorded ; and, if any one 
chooses that interpretation of these remarkable events, 
the way is open without in the slightest degree shaking 
the conclusion, otherwise reached, of the age and 
origin of the Pentateuch. . . . 

It is hardly necessary to remind the intelligent 
reader that passages have occasionally found their way 
into the text which were at first only marginal notes 
and explanations of names and places, — which has 
happened to all ancient writings, and by no means 
proves the composition of the work itself to have been 
at as late a period as that of the note. A few speci- 
mens of these later notes will be given. Genesis xii., 
6, " And the Canaanite was then in the land." Gene- 
sis xiii., 7, " And the Canaanite and the Perizzite 
dwelt in the land." These sentences were added after 
the conquest. Genesis xxiii., 2, "In Kirjath-arba; 
the same is Hebron." The last words were written 
after the conquest, to define an ancient city. Another 
passage shows that the interpolated note was not 
written till after the monarchy was established : Gene- 
sis xxxvi., 31, "before there reigned any king over the 

*In the present edition of this " study" one or two paragraphs, not essential 
to the main argument, and "not closely connected with the subject," are 
omitted, and two foot-notes are incorporated in the text. H. 



150 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

land of Israel." The passage respecting the cessation 
of the manna (Exodus xvi., 35) belongs to the same 
class. Leviticus xviii., 28, " as it spued out the nations 
before you,'' is evidently a note. Deuteronomy ii., 12, 
contains another. So also Exodus vi., 20, and xi., 3, 
unless, as is more probable, the whole account, Exodus 
i.-xix., 25, was written later. "The meekness of the 
man Moses," Numbers xii., 3, is clearly a marginal 
note. These are specimens of the explanatory notes 
which have found their way into the text. Their 
parenthetical character most clearly shows that such 
was their origin, and they raise hardly the slightest 
antecedent presumption against the antiquity of the 
original work. 

. . . But it is time to return to the direct discussion 
of my subject, which is not related except very re- 
motely to any of these questions, any more than the 
age and authorship of Gulliver s Travels and Robinson 
Crusoe are related to, or depend upon, the authenticity, 
the truth of, the accounts recorded in them. The 
contents may be incredible, but their age and author- 
ship may be indubitable. Things differing so widely 
must not be confounded with each other. 

Great stress is laid upon the fact by many writers, 
and by Professor Smith in particular, that " anointed 
stones" (Matstsebahs) were erected, and "carved im- 
ages " set up by kings and priests until the captivity, 
and thus proving that the law against idol-worship was 
not in existence. But it is evident that many of these 
"anointed stones" and "carved images" were not 
made for worship, and were forbidden by the law only 
when worshipped. Not only were the curtains of the 



THE MAKING OF GRAVEN IMAGES. 151 

tabernacle " wrought with cherubim of cunning work " 
(Exodus xxxvi., 8), but two cherubim were made of 
pure gold to stand on either end of the mercy-seat in 
the Most Holy place, on the Most Holy ark (xxxvii., 
10). The second commandment did not forbid mak- 
ing " carved images," but it forbid making carved work 
or any images for worship (Exodus xx., 4, 5). When 
Solomon erected his Temple, he not only covered the 
walls with " carvings of cherubim and palm-trees and 
open flowers," but he set up two pillars at the entrance 
of the Temple, covered all over with carvings of vines 
and pomegranates, and made a molten sea "which 
stood upon twelve oxen," and "between the ledges 
were lions, oxen, and cherubim," showing that Solo- 
mon did not interpret the law as forbidding making 
images for ornament, but for gods (I. Kings vi.). If 
any one should say that all this use of carved orna- 
ments, and images of beasts and fruits and vines, 
shows either the absence of the law or its disregard, 
let him turn to Ezekiel, and he will find that his ideal 
temple is adorned in the same manner, as far as he 
gives a particular description of it. Not only were 
cherubim and palm-trees carved upon the walls of the 
temple, but each " cherub had two faces, the face of a 
man and the face of a young lion" (Ezekiel xli.). So 
the great reformer and composer of the law, as some 
maintain, did not hesitate to use "carved images" to 
ornament his ideal temple, while in his law — for it is 
maintained by some of these authors that Ezekiel 
wrote Leviticus xvii.-xxvi. — he had absolutely forbidden 
all images for any use. So evident is it that the 



152 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

second commandment only forbade the use of images 
as representing Jehovah, and set up for worship. 

I have carefully examined all the cases of disregard 
of the Levitical law referred to by Professor Smith, 
which are recorded as taking place down to the time 
of David and a little after, and find not one which is 
not impliedly in violation of the law or excused on the 
ground of the unsettled state of the nation, or growing 
out of a false interpretation of the law itself. The 
worship of strange gods in the time of Solomon, and 
under his patronage, was not more antagonistic to the 
Levitical law than was the worship of images under 
the patronage of the Pope in the tenth century. The 
universal prevalence of taking oaths all over Christen- 
dom, and the numerous grounds of divorce in all 
Christian lands, would be greater evidence of the non- 
existence of the gospel history than the offering of 
sacrifices by Samuel and Saul and Solomon is of the 
non-existence of the Levitical law which permitted the 
priests alone to offer them, — if indeed these men and 
others did offer them, for often what one does by 
another as his agent one is said to do himself, as 
Solomon is said to have built the Temple, though he 
hewed neither stone nor timber. 



SECTION V. CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 

Here I rest the historical evidence for the antiquity of 
the Pentateuch. Were there no internal evidence in 
support of the external, we should be obliged, by the 
laws of historical criticism, to accept "The Book of 
the Law of Moses " as originating in his age. That 



CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 1 53 

the last four books, or portions of them, indirectly 
profess to have been written in that age, is not dis- 
puted. The validity of this profession is sustained by 
the internal as well as by the external evidence, as I 
shall show. But, before examining it, I will quote some 
of the opinions of leading liberal, not to say radical, 
critics on the antiquity of portions, at least, and large 
ones, of the books contained in the Pentateuch, that 
the reader may see the extravagance of some re- 
cently broached hypotheses, and how very near these 
able scholars come to sustaining the result of my own 
historical inquiry. 

De Wette says (§ 162, b.), "He [Amos] must have 
had the Book of Genesis, in its present form, about 790 
B.C." " Hosea (785 B.C.) affords us a trace of its ex- 
istence. He must have known the Book of Numbers, as 
well as the original documents and later fragments of 
Genesis." "Isaiah (759 B.C.) evidently refers to Gen- 
esis." And "Micah (725 B.C.) refers to Numbers and 
Genesis." "The discovery of the Book of the Law in 
the Temple, under Josiah's reign, about 624 B.C., re- 
lated in II. Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of the 
existence of the Pentateuch in its present form" (§ 162, 
a.). And he says (§ 12, b.), "Our present four books 
of Moses originated in the time of Solomon," 1000 
B.C. De Wette decides that "the Elohim document 
was written in the time of Samuel or Saul " (1 100 B.C.) 
(§ 158), and the " Jehovistic document before the refor- 
mation under Hezekiah took place" (726 B.C.) (§ 159). 
But this whole hypothesis of the use of Elohistic and 
Jehovistic documents, especially after the Book of Gen- 
esis, is shown to be without sufficient reason, and all 



154 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

conclusions drawn from it are therefore unreliable. 
The "archaic" words and phrases which Ewald and 
Gesenius and De Wette maintain are found in the 
Pentateuch are as numerous in what are called the 
" Jehovistic " documents as in the Elohistic ; but the 
former, according to De Wette, was written about three 
hundred years after the latter. He says, "The Penta- 
teuch was completed about the time of Josiah" (§ 12, b.). 
Dr. Davidson (Vol. I., p. 133) says, "The present 
Pentateuch had been completed shortly before the 
reign of Josiah" (641 B.C.), " in the reign of Manas- 
seh " (690 B.C.?) (p. 123). "The Book of the Law of 
Moses, spoken of II. Kings xiv., 6, may or may not 
have been the whole Pentateuch. The notice in ques- 
tion proceeds from the compiler of the Kings, who 
wrote after the present Pentateuch was completed. . . . 
In this passage, we understand the Book of the Law 
to be coextensive with the Pentateuch" (p. 119). "The 
same meaning may be assigned to the same phrase in 
II. Kings xxii., 8, n, and II. Chronicles xxxiv., 14, 15," 
where Shaphan is said to have found " The Book of the 
Law in the house of the Lord." And Dr. Davidson 
goes so far as to say that it must have the same sense 
in II. Chronicles xvii., 9, where it is said Jehoshaphat 
(912 B.C.) sent out men to teach " the Book of the Law 
of the Lord through all the cities of Judah." This 
statement is made on the authority, as the writer of 
Chronicles says, of what he found " written in the Book 
of Jehu, the son of Hanani," whose works were a part 
of "the book of the kings of Israel." On this admis- 
sion it is not easy to see why Dr. Davidson does not 
also admit that the Pentateuch, at least, may have been 



CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 155 

in existence at this time "in its present form." He 
does say with emphasis that "it is impossible to assign 
it to so late a date " as the time of Ezra (p. 122). He 
also maintains that Moses wrote not only the com- 
mandments, Exodus xx., but also xxi.-xxiii., 19 ; xxv.- 
xxxi. He further claims that Moses was the writer of 
Leviticus i.-vii., xi.-xvii., "which have the genuine 
Mosaic stamp " very perceptibly. Numbers i. " exhibits 
a minuteness, circumstantiality, and historical verisimil- 
itude which scarcely allow of a different writer. All is 
natural on the supposition of their belonging to the time 
of Moses. Chapter iv. belongs to the same times ; 
x., 1-8, must be regarded as Mosaic ; xix. is a wilder- 
ness enactment. These are not the only parts of 
the three middle books of the Pentateuch written by 
Moses. The tabernacle was made in the wilderness, 
and the Levitical legislation was Mosaic in its origin 
and essence" (Vol. I., pp. 1 09-1 13). Here are about 
thirty chapters attributed to the pen of Moses in Exodus 
— Numbers by as radical a critic as Dr. Davidson. 
Lengerke places the Elohistic document in the time of 
Solomon and the Jehovistic in the time of Hezekiah. 
Tuch places the Elohistic document in the time of 
Saul, and the Jehovistic in the time of Solomon. 
Stahelin places the Elohistic document in the time 
of the Judges and the Jehovistic in the time of 
Manasseh. Ewald, whose theory of documents was 
peculiar and accepted by few or none, believed they 
were all written before the end of the seventh century 
B.C., and assumed nearly their present form {History 
of Israel, Vol. I., p. 130). Some fragments, he thinks, 
were pre-Mosaic; one large one as old as the begin- 



£56 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

ning of Samuel's jurisdiction ; another larger portion 
of the Pentateuch, which he calls by the name of the 
" Book of Origins," was composed in the reign of Sol- 
omon, but all were written three hundred years before 
the time of Ezra, to whose authorship the Dutch school 
refer a large portion of them. 

It will be observed that all these scholars who had 
no theories of the evolution of religious ideas to support 
remit the origin of the largest portion of the Pentateuch 
to a very early period, and all of it to times before the 
reign of Josiah, 640 B.C., or two hundred years before 
the time of the return of Ezra. But the distinction 
which these scholars make between the Elohistic and 
Jehovistic portions of the last four books is chimerical, 
as will be made evident. The " archaic " style is as 
obvious in the Jehovistic as in the Elohistic portion ; 
and to date the one in the time of the Judges, as 
Stahelin does, and the other in the time of Manasseh, 
five hundred years later, is a leap in literary criticism 
which cannot be imitated nor vindicated, and proves 
conclusively the falseness of these theories. Were 
there, therefore, no further or other evidence of the age 
and probable author of the Pentateuch, I should feel 
justified in claiming that its antiquity and authorship 
were as fully proved as could be reasonably expected 
when we consider the scant literature of these early 
ages and nations. But more and more conclusive proof, 
if possible, is waiting for admittance, derived from the 
writings themselves. 



PART II. 

INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

To appreciate fully the force of the internal evidence 
which I shall present respecting the age of the Penta- 
teuch, it is necessary to consider the circumstances 
under which the external evidence raises the strongest 
probability, if it does not prove, that it was written, and 
the kind of composition, both in style and construction, 
which under those circumstances we should expect to 
find. 

According to the presumption raised by the external 
evidence and their own profession, these writings, or 
a large part of them, were composed during a period 
of forty years in which the Jewish people were sojourn- 
ing in the region lying between Egypt and Palestine 
or Canaan. They had just escaped — a portion at least 
of them — as slaves from long and bitter servitude in 
Egypt, and were on their way to take possession of the 
land which their fathers had inhabited, and from which 
they had emigrated some hundreds of years before into 
Egypt. During this sojourn in the wilderness, they 
received laws adapted to their condition, and directing 
their occupation and mode of life and worship in the 
country of which they were to take possession. Their 
situation was peculiar, and peculiar regulations would 
be needed for both their civil and religious, as well as 
social, welfare. Difficulties would arise in the interpre- 
tation and execution of a new code of laws under new 
circumstances. Rebellions would take place when any 



15^ A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

special perils awaited the people or any disappointment 
overtook them. We should expect in a book composed 
under such circumstances that many minute incidents 
then occurring would be related, many laws passed, 
growing out of passing events, many difficulties re- 
corded in the execution of the laws, and growing out 
of the contradictory character of some parts of their 
theoretical and experimental legislation. We should 
expect that the record of these years would be frag- 
mentary, journal-like, often abrupt in its statements, 
disconnected, incoherent, omitting periods in which 
nothing specially worthy of record transpired, recording 
many things which have little interest to us, but which 
were of great importance to them. Such would be the 
character of the book if written under such circum- 
stances as I have supposed, and which are affirmed in 
the book itself to be the circumstances in which it was 
composed. 

Nor these marks only should we expect to find. The 
book would have passed through all manner of perils 
during the turbulent period of the judges and the es- 
tablishment of the monarchy, when it had no secure 
place for preservation and would undoubtedly suffer 
in the disarrangement of its parts, the loss of some of 
them, the errors of any attempts at copying and cor- 
recting, the glosses of subsequent scribes to render old 
expressions intelligible, old names modern, old customs 
understood. We should expect to find, scattered all 
through it, the explanations, additions, queries, of more 
modern writers, such as the compliment to the " meek- 
ness " of Moses, the song at the old well, the modern 
names of old towns and old professions. 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 59 

Let us now examine the books, and see whether 
the construction and contents of the Pentateuch do 
not indicate pretty clearly such an origin ; whether it 
does not "breathe the desert air"; whether the camp 
and a nomadic state do not give form and coloring 
to the whole work; and whether the language does not 
contain archaic and obsolete words, and forms of 
words, and use words in a peculiar sense, all of which 
indicate a period much earlier than that in which the 
remaining books of the Old Testament were composed, 
and prove past successful refutation the Mosaic Age of 
the work. 



SECTION I. EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 

I will first examine the proof of its antiquity to be 
found in the Style and Language of the Pentateuch. 
Respecting "the archaisms and other peculiarities of 
the language " which are found in Pentateuch, De 
Wette says, " All that can be proved [by them] is that 
some of the fragments of which it is composed are earlier 
than others." " And since the Book of Joshua, notwith- 
standing its affinity with Deuteronomy, does not possess 
in common with it certain archaisms, we must admit 
that a certain uniformity of language was observed and 
established by the author or compiler." * Let the 
reader mark two important affirmations : (1) There are 
"archaisms and other peculiarities of language" in the 
Pentateuch. (2) They are so marked as to distinguish 
even the Book of Deuteronomy from the Book of 
Joshua, in which they are not found. But, says De 



160 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

Wette, " all that can be proved by these archaisms and 
peculiarities of language is that some of the fragments 
of which it [the Pentateuch] is composed are earlier 
than others." Now, the fact respecting these " archa- 
isms and peculiarities " is that they are found in both 
the so-called Elohistic and Jehovistic documents as 
selected by De Wette himself. They are not limited 
to any of these theoretical or real documents or frag- 
ments. They pervade the whole work. They make as 
clear a distinction between the Pentateuch and all the 
following books of the Bible as the contents of the 
rocks do between the Eocene and the Miocene periods ; 
and it is lamentable that he should have allowed him- 
self, when struggling with this objection to his theory 
of the late origin of the Pentateuch, derived from its 
"archaisms and peculiarities of language," to entirely 
misrepresent the method and result of Jahn's Study 
on this subject. He says,* "Jahn, without examining 
and sifting, has huddled all together, . . . especially 
[names of] things which do not occur elsewhere, — tech- 
nical terms." This is just what Jahn did not do, what 
he especially avoided. He omitted all such words as 
De Wette accuses him, in this quotation, of introduc- 
ing, as our subsequent notice of Jahn's method will 
show. In § 34, De Wette says, " The oldest writers, the 
authors of the Pentateuch, . . . write in the purest and 
most beautiful language. . . . During the exile and 
after it, the influence of the Aramcean language be- 
comes visible, as well as other peculiarities in the usage 
of the language." Gesenius divides Hebrew literature 
into two periods, that before and during and that after 

*§ x 57> Note a. 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. l6l 

the captivity. The " Aramaean tinges " all the second 
period. " The Pentateuch belongs to the first period, 
with Joshua and Judges and Samuel and Kings." And 
what is unaccountable is that, after saying that "the 
language and usage of the Pentateuch, in the historical 
passages, agree perfectly with those of the other histori- 
cal books," he immediately continues : " However, the 
Pentateuch has some peculiarities," which he concedes 
may indicate "a high antiquity of these books." * 
Gesenius obviously means by this that they are the 
oldest in Hebrew literature, as the " archaisms " prove, 
and consequently were not written in whole or in part 
by Ezra. But Gesenius says more than this : " From 
the circumstance that these idioms appear also in the 
later Book of Deuteronomy, it is in the highest degree 
probable that a conforming hand has been busy with 
them." Mark the consequence of this "probability." 
Deuteronomy is supposed to be the book found or 
forged by Hilkiah. If so, as these critics maintain, 
then "the archaisms and peculiarities of language," 
which it is affirmed distinguish the four other books of 
the Pentateuch, Genesis — Numbers, had already gone 
out of use, and rendered it necessary for the writer of 
Deuteronomy to " co?iform" his style to those older 
books, in order that his forgery might escape detection. 
But if these books, Genesis — Numbers, were not writ- 
ten, as the Dutch school maintain, till during the cap- 
tivity and after it, why was it necessary that the writer 
of Deuteronomy should feel compelled to "conform" 
his style to that of books not in existence ? Indeed, to 
ordinary minds, it does not seem possible that he could 

* De Wette, Vol. I., Appendix D, § 8. 



162 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

do it without miraculous foresight. And, more wonder- 
ful still, why should these forgers of the laws during 
and after the captivity have taken so much pains to in- 
troduce these " archaisms and peculiarities " when there 
was no old literature to show that they ever existed, no 
older books considered sacred ? 

In order, however, to justify his placing Deuteronomy 
at a considerably later period than Genesis — Numbers, 
Gesenius says : " A remarkably different style prevails in 
Deuteronomy [from that in the earlier books]. Its most 
remarkable characteristic consists in a certain diffuse, 
rhetorical, and moralizing tone, and the constant re- 
turn of favorite phrases." That is to say, " its most 
remarkable characteristic " is precisely that which dis- 
tinguishes an oration from a statute, an address from 
an enactment. Deuteronomy is an oration, an address. 
Exodus — Numbers are made up of "orders" and 
" laws." They demand a different style from an ad- 
dress, and they have it. Yet the fragments of addresses 
which are scattered through these earlier books are as 
" diffuse, rhetorical, and moralizing in tone " as Deu- 
teronomy. There is nothing in the style of Deuter- 
onomy to separate it in age from the other books. The 
different styles demanded by moral precepts and stat- 
ute laws and specifications for work and an address 
fully explain and justify the difference between the 
style of Exodus — Numbers and that of Deuteronomy. 

Then, again, the mood of mind in which a person 
writes, and whether he dictates or holds the pen, has 
his extemporaneous address taken down by another or 
writes it out afterwards himself, make a difference in the 
same person's style which few critics appreciate. As I 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 63 

write, a notable instance of it comes to mind. It is in 
Mr. Whipple's Memoir of Thomas Starr King* In an 
interview with Mr. King, Mr. Whipple says : " I main- 
tained that he lost in compactness many of the advan- 
tages he gained in compass, — that his pen when placed 
in his own fingers not only hit on the best word or 
phrase to express his thought, but really deepened the 
thought by the pauses which composition exacts. The 
dispute culminated late one Sunday evening after he 
had delivered a carefully premeditated lecture on Hilde- 
brand. I recklessly offered to distinguish among the 
promiscuous passages which were fresh in my memory 
those which he had himself written from those he had 
dictated to his amanuensis. Manuscript in hand, he 
laughingly defied me to undertake the task. By good 
luck, I happened to be right in every guess." Two 
thousand years hence or less, some critic of this disin- 
tegrating school will be proving to admiring students 
of " advanced thought " that this lecture on Hildebrand 
is a composite work patched up by a later hand from 
different authors ! 

As this matter of style has an important, not to say a 
decisive, bearing on the age of the Pentateuch, I make 
one more reference to the opinion of Gesenius. He 
says, in his Hebrew Gra77imar, Introduction, 3 : " The 
Pentateuch undoubtedly has some peculiarities of 
language which may pass for archaisms" and then 
proceeds to name a few which distinguish it from all 
other literature before the captivity : " Jeremiah and 
Ezekiel are examples of a decided approach to the 
Aramaean hue of the silver age," or to the books written 

•Page 58. 



164 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

during the later period of the captivity and after the 
return, " in all of which a Chaldee [Aramaean] coloring, 
although in different degrees, is exhibited." He says 
further, as quoted in Parker's De Wette* " As the 
language appears at present in the writings of the Old 
Testament, we can distinguish in them only two periods 
distinctly marked by their character, — those writings 
before the exile and those during the exile and after it." 
On page 443, he says: "With the exile begins a new 
epoch for language and literature, which is particularly 
distinguished by an approach to the cognate East- Ara- 
maean dialect to which the Jews in the land of exile 
became accustomed." And he further says, page 450 : 
" Ezekiel stands on the borders of the two periods. . . . 
He shares many peculiar terms and Chaldaic expres- 
sions with his contemporary, Jeremiah. But they are 
more numerous in Ezekiel ; and, among all writers of 
the Old Testament, perhaps he has proportionably the 
greatest number of grammatical anomalies and inac- 
curacies." " Ecclesiastes is tinged most deeply with 
Aramaean dye." This would seem to be conclusive 
respecting the composition of any part of the Penta- 
teuch in this period or near it, and yet we are gravely 
told by Dr. Kuenen that Leviticus xviii.-xxvi. was 
written by this eminently Chaldeeizing Ezekiel. 

Dr. Davidson says : " There are some peculiarities 
in the Pentateuch . . . which were afterwards modified or 
dropped. There are diversities between the language 
as found in it, and the language some centuries after, 
which can be recognized." " The Aramaean [Chaldee] 
element is a characteristic feature which distinguishes 

* VoL I., Appendix D, p. 440. 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 65 

the language of this [later] period." " This deteriora- 
tion is observable even in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who, 
in point of language, stand on the borders of the two 
ages," that before and that after the captivity. " It is 
still more noticeable in the post-exile prophets." * And 
yet a school of critics contend that a portion of the 
Pentateuch was written by Ezekiel, and, more incredible 
still, that large parts of it were written by Ezra. Nine 
years later, when Davidson was goaded into becoming 
a partisan rather than a critic, he endeavors to parry 
the force of the argument derived from " archaisms " in 
favor of the Mosaic age of the Pentateuch by exposing 
the extravagant claims of some of their advocates ; but 
he says, "We do not say that there are no diversities 
of language between the Pentateuch and later books." 
The fact then remains that there is an observable differ- 
ence in the style of the Pentateuch from that of the later 
books, and indicating an earlier age. And this is all 
that is claimed. The more or less diversity is of no 
vital importance. 

Ewald, the great Hebraist, whose fanciful theory of 
five or six writers of different portions of the Pentateuch 
has not been accepted by critics, says, " These frag- 
ments," referring to the earliest, according to his classi- 
fication, " display many both rare and archaic peculiarities 
in the usage of words " ; and he gives several in a note ? 
and remarks, " We find here, in proportion to the trifling 
bulk of the passages, a great number of words which are 
either wholly unknown elsewhere, or are not usual in 
prose." f But the same holds true of all the portions 

* Bib. Crit.y Vol. I., pp. 15,18. 
\His.o/Is.,Vo\.l. l p. 65. 



1 66 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

or sections made by Ewald ; and these peculiarities all 
disappear in the books following the Pentateuch, prov- 
ing that a period of considerable length must have in- 
tervened between the close of its composition and that 
of those books. I cannot understand how Hebrew 
scholars can believe that the Pentateuch, so marked by 
its " archaisms," could have been written after Joshua 

— Kings (a large part of it even by Ezra), which are free 
from them ; and these books were most certainly written 
before the middle of the captivity, most of them before 
its commencement, and some of them as early as or 
earlier than the time of David. 

The emphasis with which Ewald characterizes the dif- 
ference in the style of the Pentateuch and that of the 
rest of the books written before the captivity (Joshua 

— Kings) demands notice. "The first phenomenon," 
he says, " that strikes the observer here is the marked 
difference in the language [of these later books] in com- 
parison with that of the preceding great book of the 
primitive history [the Pentateuch]. Although both are 
equally made up of passages by the most diverse writ- 
ers, yet on the whole each is distinguished by a peculiar 
cast of language. Many fresh words and expressions 
become favorites here [in Joshua — Kings] and sup- 
plant their equivalents in the primitive history [Genesis 

— Deuteronomy] ; others that are thoroughly in vogue 
here [in Joshua — Kings] are . . . avoided in the primi- 
tive history. But the most remarkable and pervading 
characteristic is that words of common life, which never 
occur to the pen of any single relater of the primitive 
history, find an unquestioned reception here [in Joshua — 
Kings]." " I have no hesitation in saying," he yet 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 167 

more emphatically affirms, " that the established usage of 
centuries must have sanctioned for the primitive history 
[the Pentateuch] a style of narrative and a cast of lan- 
guage utterly differe?it from those customary in the his- 
tory of the Kings," in which Ewald includes Judges — 
Kings. They " naturally created a new style of narra- 
tive and of language."* The italics are mine. Ewald 
here affirms that for " centuries " the " primitive style " 
of the Pentateuch existed before the writers of the later 
books and literature lived. But we have good reason 
to believe that we have remains of literature as early 
as the time of David in some of the Psalms, to say 
nothing of the probability that the Book of Judges and 
portions of Samuel and all of Joshua may have been 
written in his reign or shortly after, in none of which 
are there any of the " archaisms and peculiarities of lan- 
guage " which are " utterly different from those custom- 
ary " in Joshua — Kings, and constituting a " new style 
of narrative and language." But, according to the esti- 
mate of many modern critics, only about three centuries 
intervened between Moses and David or Solomon, and 
only about five, according to the earlier critics. Ewald's 
"usage of centuries" reaches back easily to the time 
of Moses in either chronology. To make as great a 
change in the language as he affirms, that length of 
time, in that age, would be required. The age of the 
Pentateuch is thrown back, therefore, to the time of 
Moses by the demand of its "utterly different" style from 
that of the later books. For this " archaic style tinges " 
all the different documents of which some critics think the 
work is composed, as Ewald admits "even Deuteronomy 
tobe."t 

*Vol. I., pp. 134, 135- tPage 135. 



1 68 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

These opinions of eminent Hebrew scholars, with 
which nine-tenths of the scholars in this country who 
can read Hebrew agree, must suffice as proof of the 
"archaic style" of the Pentateuch. A popular essay 
like this is not the place for a minute exhibition and 
criticism of these " archaisms and peculiarities of lan- 
guage." A few specimens only will be given, as indi- 
cations of their character, and illustrations of their 
number and variety, in which the common reader may 
be interested. 

The most striking and obvious peculiarity in the style 
of the Pentateuch is the use of the same word for the 
singular pronoun in the third person of both genders, 
he and she. In the rest of the Hebrew writings, a dis- 
tinction is always made and a different word is used for 
the feminine pronoun she. Ewald himself admits that 
" this is a proof which cannot be mistaken, in favor of 
the high antiquity of the Pentateuch." And when we 
remember that this pronoun is used nearly two hundred 
times in the Pentateuch, and, with but eleven excep- 
tions, in the same form, the " proof " becomes decisive 
that the book is older than any other Hebrew writings 
which have come down to us ; hence older even than 
the Psalms of David, in which no such " archaic " word 
is found. The same remark may be made respecting 
a word which in the Pentateuch is used twenty-five times, 
and is applied indifferently to either a young man or a 
young woman ; while in the other Hebrew writings the 
feminine termination is added to distinguish the gender. 
A peculiar form of the plural demonstrative pronoun 
" these " is found in the Pentateuch. One phrase which 
indicates strongly the very early origin of the book is 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 69 

that used to denote the death of an Israelite. He is 
said " to be gathered to his people" ; while in the later 
writings he is said " to be gathered to his fathers." The 
nation not yet being settled in the land of promise, the 
"fathers " are not spoken of. A peculiar word is used 
in the Pentateuch to denote species, kind, of animals 
and plants twenty-eight times, and is never used in later 
writings, with but one exception, when Ezekiel (xlvii., 10) 
most obviously quotes the language of the Pentateuch, 
Genesis i., 21. A peculiar phrase is used twenty-one 
times to signify the relation of the sexes. Fourteen 
times a peculiar word is used for lamb. .A peculiar 
word for laugh is used thirteen times, or rather a pecu 
liar spelling of a word. A peculiar word is used fifty 
times for goat which is never used for that animal in the 
other books. A word is used for female twenty-one 
times in the Pentateuch, and never in the other writings 
except by Jeremiah (xxxi., 22), with evident reference 
to the old usage. Nephesh is used eighteen times for 
"creature" and but once elsewhere, Ezekiel xlvii., 9. 
Such is a specimen of the "archaic" words and 
phrases used in this book. Dr. Jahn, who made a 
special examination of these " archaisms," after omit- 
ting all words which treat of subjects peculiar to the 
Pentateuch, such as names of towns, villages, nations, 
men ; of diseases and symptoms of diseases ; of blem- 
ishes in sacrifices, priests, men, and women; of parts 
of the tabernacle, and its altars, curtains, and furni- 
ture, — in short, after the omission of all words which 
were used to signify things or ideas not spoken of in 
the later books, — found over two hundred words, used 
from two to two hundred times each, which are peculiar 



170 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

to the Pentateuch* When we consider the meagre 
vocabulary of Hebrew words, this number is a very 
large one, and is conclusive evidence that the book 
was composed in a period remote from that in which 
the other Hebrew books were written. " The few sol- 
itary Chaldaisms which occur in the writings of the 
Golden Age," and which have been adduced as proof 
of the modern origin of the Pentateuch, Gesenius says, 
"may be accounted for by the fact that these books 
passed through the hands of copyists whose language 
was Chaldee." Besides, it is not certain that all these 
so called Chaldaisms are such. " Some of them are 
not found," says Gesenius, "in Chaldee, and seem to 
have belonged to the Hebrew popular dialect." f 

Looking at the language only, therefore, we are re- 
quired to refer the Pentateuch to an age as remote 
as that of Moses. It is objected, however, to this 
view of the age of the Pentateuch, that the language 
must have undergone a greater change between the 

*Yet in the face of all this conscientious and scholarly discrimination, De 
Wette is rash enough and unjust enough to say that Jahn was utterly heedless 
and undiscriminating in his selection of words. 

t The latest statement which I have seen respecting the language of the Pen- 
tateuch is contained in a notice of a H istorico-Criiical Commentary on the 
Language of the Elohist in the Pentateuch (by C. Victor Ryssel : 8vo, pp. 
92; Leipzig, Fernan, 1878), in which it is said that "the result of the au- 
thor's laborious examinations is that only some parts of the Books of Exodus, 
Leviticus, Numbers, contain peculiarities of language which point to a rather 
late date of composition. These are the parts which, taken together, form the 
so-called Priest's Code. But the greater parts of the Elohistic book, and the 
weightiest, i.e., the historic and the supreme laws, are to be referred to the early 
days of the literature of the Israelite people." Of the ability of this scholar to 
decide on this subject, I have no knowledge. Accepting his decision as correct 
respecting the fact of "certain peculiarities of language" in the ritual which 
" point to a rather late date of composition," this would be expected; for ritual 
language survives all other, and would be used, when ritualistic matters were 
treated of, long centuries after the ritual was composed and adopted. 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 171 

Mosaic Age, in which it is claimed that the Penta- 
teuch was written, and the age in which the remaining 
books, Joshua — Kings, were written, than we find that 
it has undergone in these books. If, however, Joshua 
and Judges and a portion of Samuel were written in 
the age of David or Solomon, as is most probable, only 
about three hundred years intervened between their 
composition and that of the Pentateuch, according to 
the most commonly received chronology ; and, setting 
their composition as late as that of the Books of the 
Kings, but about seven hundred years separate them. 
Now, it is well known that the early Oriental languages 
do not change as rapidly as those in modern days. 
The late George H. Smith, the eminent Assyriologist, 
says : * " The texts of Rim-agu, Sargon, Hammurali, who 
were one thousand years before Nebuchadnezzar and 
Nabonidus, show the same language as the texts of these 
later kings, there being no sensible difference in style to 
match the long interval between them." These older 
texts were of the age of Moses, according to the old 
chronology, and just as much time elapsed between 
their composition and the later texts as elapsed be 
tween the time of Moses and the captivity, when the 
Books of the Kings were written ; but, according to 
the new chronology, the text of Rim-agu is three hun- 
dred years older than that of the Pentateuch. 

The Egyptologists also testify to the slight changes 
which took place in the early centuries in the language 
of Egypt. In the Revue Archhlogique (1867, unless my 
reference is incorrect) is the following statement : " In 
comparing the demotic papyrus with the romance of 

•Vol. II., p. 23. 



172 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

the Two Brothers, even a superficial examination shows, 
not only that the language and the formulae of the two 
papyri, separated from each other by an interval of 
some thousand years, are of the same kind, but also — 
a point of most special interest — even the grammar has 
not undergone the least change." Well might there 
not have been any greater change in the Hebrew lan- 
guage of the time of Moses down to the time of the 
captivity than we find when we compare the language 
of the Pentateuch and that of the Books of the Kings. 
There is a change, and as great as we should expect to 
find under the circumstances, as great as the analogy of 
other Oriental languages would lead us to anticipate. 

The language of the Pentateuch is " archaic " ; sig- 
nally different from the earliest of the other writings, 
and some of these date back to the time of David. 
The time between Moses and David was none too great 
to have wrought this difference. Governed by the lan- 
guage of the work, we must date the Pentateuch as 
early as the Mosaic Age. 

Nor can it be said with any ground of reason that 
this " archaic language " in the Pentateuch is only the 
" priestly idiom " which was used by the priestly forgers, 
Hilkiah and Ezra ; for there is no proof that there was 
any " priestly idiom." And, more than this, the writ- 
ings of the priests which have come down to us contain 
none of these " archaic peculiarities." Jeremiah, Eze- 
kiel, Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, all priests, write in the 
degenerate language of the age of the captivity, and 
use none of the " archaic " words which distinguish the 
language of the Pentateuch from all the other books. 
This they would not have done, had these peculiar 
words been the special vocabulary of priestly men. 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 1 73 

Before dismissing a consideration of the language of 
the Pentateuch, as furnishing an argument for its an- 
tiquity, it is necessary to consider an objection to this 
conclusion which has been drawn from the marked 
diversity of style in the books themselves. A sufficient 
reply to this objection, so far as my argument is con- 
cerned, is that, however diverse the style of the differ- 
ent parts of these books may be, the style of all these 
parts is " archaic," and hence they were written long 
before Joshua — Kings. But I cannot admit that such 
diversities of style as the objection implies are found in 
the Pentateuch. Excepting the first eleven chapters of 
Genesis, which contain some notices of the world before 
the time of Abraham, and excepting several passages 
in the remainder of Genesis, there is a unity of style as 
clearly marked as in any writing by even one person, 
spread over as long a period (forty years) and includ- 
ing as many different subjects, to say nothing of the 
probability of the employment of scribes who would 
naturally write in different styles while using the same 
" archaic language." I have gone through the drudg- 
ery of examining all De Wette's divisions founded upon 
what he is pleased to call diversities of style, and have 
risen from the task entirely satisfied that there is no 
good foundation for any such wide diversities as he 
maintains are to be found, making it possible with any 
degree of certainty to identify the different writers. 
The self-contradictory nature of some of the rules by 
which he professes to be governed, the different words 
which in different sections he quotes as proving the 
identity of the authorship of some sections and the dif- 
ferent authorship of other sections, are sufficient to lead 



1^4 A STUDV OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

the student to suspect that a mistake has been made in 
this portion of his Introduction ; and upon further and 
closer examination he will find his suspicions changed 
into firm conclusions that such heterogeneousness of 
style, as is affirmed so decidedly to exist, is not to be 
found in these books. But we will not be allured much 
further from a positive consideration of our subject by 
the fruitful field of criticism which opens before us in 
this direction. 

A very brief space only must be taken to illustrate 
the fatuity of all such attempts to cull out the parts 
which are attributed to the different hypothetical 
writers. I use De Wette's fragments, who confesses 
to following " Stahelin's plan." Did De Wette test this 
plan by comparing it with the text ? It does not seem 
possible. He says Exodus xvi. is from the Elohist 
writer, yet God is called Elohim but once and Jehovah 
twenty-two times. Chapter xx., 19-21, is Jehovistic, 
and yet God is called Elohim three times and not once 
Jehovah. Leviticus iii., 6, is called Elohistic, yet God 
is called Jehovah. These are selected as Elohistic, yet 
God is called Jehovah in all of them : Leviticus vi., 18 ; 
vii., 20, 21 ; x., 15, used twice. Leviticus xiv., Jehovah 
is used twenty-three times, Elohim once. Leviticus L- 
iii., Jehovah twenty-nine times, Elohim once ; xvii., 
4-10, Jehovah seven times, Elohim not once; xix., 8, 
34, Jehovah in each; xxii., 3, Jehovah twice; xxiv., 16, 
22, Jehovah in both; xxvii., 9, 11, 16, 21, 22, 28, Jeho- 
vah eight times and Elohim not once in these later ref- 
erences. Let us look into Numbers i.-x. : Jehovah is 
used ninety-nine times, Elohim once! xviii., Jehovah 
sixteen times, Elohim not once; xx., 1-13, Jehovah 



EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND LANGUAGE. 



75 



seven times, Elohim once ; xxv., 1-18, Jehovah six 
times, Elohim once. These are sufficient illustrations 
of the complete unreliableness of this attempt to parcel 
out these books, Exodus — Numbers, among different 
authors on this use of the names of God. Further 
exposure was made of the attempt in the Review of 
Kuenen, p. 71.* 

* The utter futility of all attempts to separate the Levitical or priestly parts 
of the middle books, Exodus — Numbers, from the rest of the writing, will be 
best understood by the reader from the disagreements of the scholars who have 
attempted to separate them. I will give the parts selected by Noldeke, as 
quoted by Prof Smith, pp. 432, 433, and as selected by Stahelin, as quoted in 
barker's De Wette, Vol. II., pp. 106-130. 

For greater ease in comparing them, I will tabulate their selections. The 
verses selected are often not connected. 



Exodus, chapter 




i-> 


N 


dldeke 9 verses; 


Stahelin 


22 


" 


" 




ii. 




2* « 


u 




3 


" 


" 




vi., 




" 27 " 


" 




30 


" 


" 




vii., 




i5l " 


" 




7 


" 


" 




viii., 




7l " 


" 







" 


" 




ix. 




" 5 


" 







" 


" 




xi., 




«< 2 << 


" 







" 


<< 




xii., 




37 


<< 




42 


CI 


«< 




xiii., 
xiv. 

XV. 




« 3 « 
15 3-2 " 

2* « 


<< 




4 




" 


t< 




xvi. 




36 


<< 




15 


" 


« 




xvii. 




H 16 


M 







" 


(t 




xix. 




" 2 


" 







«< 


« 


XX 


-xxiv. , 




" 3 " 


" 




118* 


" 


" 


xxvi 


-xxxi., 


*7 


all 


" 




all 


" 


" 


xxxv.-xl. 




all 


<< 




all 


Leviticus, 


... 


1 


-xxvi., 
xxvii. 


2 


" all but 48 " 

all 


" 




all 
allt 


Numbers, 


" 




i. -viii. , 


22 


all 


" 


4 verses more 


" 


" 




ix.-x., 


28 


« all 


" 


9 verses more 


" 


" 




xiii., 




" 19 3-2 " 


<< 




all 



» De Wette and Parker differ from both Noldeke and Stahelin and from each other. 
♦ Parker utterly objects to both. 



176 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

I cannot close this already extended discussion of the 
" archaic language " of the Pentateuch as proof of its 
high antiquity, without saying that my reading of the 
Hebrew and my examination of the discussion of the 
eminent critics quoted above compel me to make three 
periods of the language of the Old Testament Script- 
ures : The first covering the Pentateuch ; the second, 
Joshua — Kings ; the third, Chronicles — Esther. The 
poetical books belonging to the second and third periods 
can be nearly as easily distinguished as the historical. 



Numbers, 


chapter 


xiv., 


Noldeke 


23 verses ; 


Stahelin 


all 


<c 


" 


xvi., 


11 


7 3-2 


<< 


" 


all 


<« 


« 


xvii.-xix., 


" 


all 


«i 


<< 


confused 


<( 


" 


XX., 


" 


i8i 


k 


<i 


confused 


(( 


<i 


XXI., 


it 


2% 


" 


(i 





II 


11 


xxii., 


11 


1 


11 


(< 





II 


it 


XXV., 


'• 


18 


«( 


<i 





« 


«< 


xxvi., 


" 


53^ 


ti 


<« 


65 


" 


" 


xxvii., 


11 


all 


" 


<< 


all 


II 


11 


xxviii., 


" 





11 


11 


all 


(< 


ti 


xxix., 


<t 





11 


it 


all 


« 


" 


XXX., 


" 


14 


<( 


" 


16 


II 


" 


xxxi., 


11 


all 


IC 


11 


all 


II 


" 


xxxii., 


" 


23^ 


(1 


" 


32 


II 


" 


xxxiii., 


(< 


50 


" 


" 


49 


(1 


" xxxiv.-xxxvi., 


" 


all 


II 


" 


all 



Decided dissent is expressed by both De Wette and Parker from many of 
these selections, which I did not think it necessary to note. Prof. Smith says, 
" Nbldeke's table is generally accepted as careful and correct in essentials." 
De Wette says, " Staheiin's is, as a whole, certainly correct I " The italics are 
mine. Comment is unnecessary. But that the reader may see what this table 
does not show, the mawier in which these verses are selected by Noldeke, I will 
give a few specimens as furnishing farther proof of the imaginary line which 
separates the verses chosen and the verses left. Exodus i., 1-5, 7, 13, 14; ii., 
23, 24, 25; xiii., 1, 2, 20; xii., 1-23, 28, 37, 40-51; xi., 9, 10; Numbers xvi., 1, 
half of 2, 3-ir, 16-23, P ar t of 24, 26, 27, 35; xxxii., 2 (3?), 4-6, 16-32, part of 
33, 40. These specimens must suffice. Any reader can turn to the Bible, and 
judge whether there is any ground for selecting just these passages. I have no 
fear of the result. See Note A, p. 231. 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. I 77 
SECTION II. EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 

Were there, therefore, no other evidence of the age 
of the composition of the Pentateuch, its archaic lan- 
guage would be sufficient to determine it. But there is 
other evidence corroborative of this, and also adding its 
own independent weight to the same conclusion. This 
evidence is found in the contents and structure of the 
books of the Pentateuch, and determines their age as 
certainly and as evidently as the contents and structure 
of the rocks determine their age. The contents and 
structure of the Silurian rocks no more surely prove 
their deposition to have been before the Devonian than 
the contents and structure of the Pentateuch prove it to 
have been written before any other books in the Bible. 

Another internal argument in favor of the antiquity 
of the Pentateuch is found in the jour?ial-like character 
of the work itself. It is in precisely the form it would 
have been in, had it been written under the circum- 
stances commonly believed to exist at the time of its 
composition. It is fragmentary and abrupt, relating 
incidents in such a manner and form as to induce the 
belief that the writer was on the spot and narrated what 
he saw, and his own feelings under the circumstances. 
To fully appreciate this characteristic of the Penta- 
teuch, or the last four books of it, we must go into 
particulars, which will show very clearly that they were 
composed on the spot where the transactions recorded 
transpired. 

I. I will first refer to the occurrence of unexpected 
difficulties which arose, making it necessary to amend or 



1 78 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

repeal laws which had been previously enacted. A 
marked instance of this nature occurs respecting the 
law of inheritance in accordance with which none but 
sons could inherit the real estate of the father; and 
specific regulations were made respecting the manner 
in which it should be divided. But, when the tribes 
were about to enter upon possession of the promised 
land, the daughters of Zelophehad came forward, and 
stated that their father had left no sons at his death, 
and therefore that their father's portion of the land 
would go out of the family. They pray, therefore, that 
a possession may be given them among their brethren. 
To meet this emergency, Moses enacts a new, or rather 
amends the old, law. He enacts that, " if a man die 
and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to 
pass unto his daughter." And farther provisions are 
made in case no daughter should survive (Numbers 
xxvii., 1-11). If we turn forward nine chapters, we 
shall find that this new law was found to be as defec- 
tive as the old one, but in another direction. It was 
the intention of Moses that no part of the inheritance 
of one tribe should pass into the possession of another 
tribe. But these daughters of Zelophehad were pro- 
posing to marry into another tribe, — not into that to 
which their father belonged. This caused the children 
of the other families of the tribe to make complaint to 
Moses that his amendment to the old law, which gave 
the inheritance to the sons only, and giving it, in case 
of no sons, to the daughters, would disinherit their tribe 
of a part of their estate, since these daughters of 
Zelophehad were about to marry out of the tribe, and 
thus take their father's inheritance with them. Moses 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. I79 

saw the conflicting nature of both the original law and 
his amendment, and he amended the amendment by en- 
acting that, in all cases, " every daughter that posses- 
seth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of 
Israel shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe 
of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy 
every man the inheritance of his fathers." Let, there- 
fore, the daughters of Zelophehad " marry to whom 
they think best ; only to the family of the tribe of their 
fathers shall they marry " (Numbers xxxvi.). Thus, 
after three experiments, the law is perfected, and the 
details of the cause of these changes are given as if 
written on the spot. Would a compiler of the laws of 
the Hebrews in the time of Ezra have thus stated this 
matter ? It is very improbable, not to say incredible. 

Another incident is related, showing the imperfect 
character of the first enactment, and how, from time to 
time, laws were added to meet these new emergencies. 
A man was found violating the Sabbath by picking up 
sticks (Numbers xv., 32). The law had forbidden all 
work. A man is found violating the law : how is he 
to be punished? Moses adds a new section to the 
law containing the penalty for violating the Sabbath. 
Stone him with stones without the camp. Here we see 
clearly that a history of the origin of the penalty is 
given, which would not have been given by a compiler 
of a later age. The same is true of the law against 
blasphemy (Leviticus xxiv., 10-23) t0 be noticed soon. 

The change which was made in the law respecting 
usury indicates the journal-like character of the Penta- 
teuch. It is first enacted (Exodus xxii., 25) that no usury 
shall be taken of the poor, as it would be oppressive ; 



l8o A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

but it is distinctly implied that it might be taken of the 
rich. Just as the tribes were to enter Canaan, thirty- 
eight years after, we find that this law is so modified as 
to forbid the taking of usury from any Hebrew (Deut- 
eronomy xxiii., 19). It had been found, probably, that 
very little money would be loaned to the poor with- 
out usury, when it could be loaned to the rich with 
usury. All usury of Hebrews is therefore now forbidden. 
But another curious change is found in these usury laws 
respecting strangers who came to dwell among the He- 
brews. Soon after the people left Egypt, it was enacted 
that no usury should be taken of the poor of their own 
people, but of the poor of other people who had come 
among them nothing is said. In about two years, just 
before the people leave Sinai, a more stringent law is 
passed respecting usury (Leviticus xxv., 35) ; and stran- 
gers are included in it, and especially those who had 
been overtaken by calamity and had lost their property. 
Just before entering Canaan (Deuteronomy xxiii., 19), 
we find that the law forbidding usury when loans were 
made to sojourners and strangers is repealed. It is 
very easy to see why a writer on the spot should insert 
all these particulars ; but it is not easy to see why a 
later writer giving a compend of the law should have 
inserted all these minute matters, or indeed how he 
could have known them unless some one had written 
them at the time, and the later writer had used his 
journal. The old law was found upon trial to be im- 
perfect: an amendment was enacted, and inserted in 
the book containing the legislative proceedings, as is 
done at this day. 

An unforeseen difficulty arose respecting the passover 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. l8l 

(Leviticus xxiii., i). Every Israelite was bound by the 
original law to keep the passover on the fourteenth day 
of the first month, and a heavy penalty rested upon 
him who failed to obey it. Yet it was equally perilous 
for a person ritually unclean to minister in any sacred 
rite. In Numbers ix., we have the record of such a 
conflict in the laws. " Certain men who were defiled 
by the dead body of a man," so that they could not 
keep the passover, came to Moses and Aaron and in- 
quired what they should do. Moses saw the conflict in 
the laws, and enacted that they, and all persons who 
should hereafter be in their situation, might eat the 
passover on the fourteenth day of the second month, re- 
garding, at the same time, all the ceremonies which 
were required of those who ate it in the previous 
month. 

A long series of amendments is found in Deuter- 
onomy to adapt laws, many of which were designed 
for a camp and nomadic life, to the settled, agricultural 
condition of the people in Canaan. In camp, they were 
required to kill their animals for food at the tabernacle, 
that the priests might see that no idolatrous rites were 
performed with the blood and entrails : in the land of 
their inheritance, they could kill animals for food at 
their own homes. Tents were to be exchanged for 
houses, and laws respecting their construction and 
purification are enacted. 

A difficulty arose respecting the penalty to be in- 
flicted on one of that " mixed " race which came out of 
Egypt with Israel. A son of an Israelitish woman and 
of a man of Egypt had a fray, blasphemed and cursed. 
He is kept in ward till his case could be inquired into , 



r82 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

and it is at last determined, after careful inquiry, that 
he should be put to death as an Israelite must be who 
had committed the same crime (Leviticus xxiv., 10-23). 
Such changes, additions, and amendments in the laws, 
made to meet emergencies apparently unforeseen, most 
certainly indicate a writer on the spot, and not a histo- 
rian of remotely succeeding generations. 

II. But this Book of Deuteronomy and the light 
which it throws upon the age of the Pentateuch de- 
mand a thorough examination, as so much misappre- 
hension exists concerning both. 

Dr. Kuenen affirms that the forger of Deuteronomy 
intended to deceive the people, and that "men used to 
perpetrate such fictions without any qualms of con- 
science." * De Wette says : " The author of Deuter- 
onomy would have us regard his whole book as the 
work of Moses" (Parker's De Wette, Vol. II., p. 159). 
Davidson says, " A late writer represents the whole of 
Deuteronomy, or at least chapters iv., 44-xxx., as pro- 
ceeding from Moses' hand." ..." The deception was 
an innocent one, being merely a veil or form for 
communicating and enforcing lessons of importance ! " 
Indeed, all supporters of this theory admit that 
Deuteronomy is a flagrant forgery. Yet they are 
compelled to admit, also, that the writer had before 
him many older documents containing laws ancient 
and venerated. I propose to show how the laws given 
at Sinai, forty years before, were amended on the east 
bank of the Jordan by the original law-giver, and thus 
prove by its contents that the address of Moses is not 
a " fiction " written eight centuries later, but a substan- 

♦Vol. II., p. »8. 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 83 

tially correct report of a real transaction. In Deuter- 
onomy xii.-xxvi., we have a series of additions and 
amendments to previous laws, all based upon new circum- 
stances or defects discovered in the original enactment, none 
of them affecting the fundamental law of the nation. 
It would require more space than I can take, and more 
patience in the reader than can be assumed, to quote 
or refer to all the changes made and the reasons for 
them ; nor is it necessary for my argument to do so. 
A few must suffice as indicating the rest. I give the 
following as average illustrations of all of them : Per- 
mission is given to the people to kill animals at their 
own homes instead of at the door of the tabernacle. 
Secretly enticing to idolatry is made a capital crime. 
Idolatrous cities are to be razed to the ground. 
Mourners are not to shave between the eyes. A dead 
carcass may be sold to an alien. The animals that 
may be eaten are named. When the distance is " too 
great to carry the tithe of corn and wine and oil and 
the firstlings of thy herds and flocks" to the place 
which God shall choose, " then thou shalt turn it into 
money " to use at the place chosen. Payment of debts 
is not to be enforced in the Sabbatical year from the 
poor. Slaves are to be emancipated on the seventh 
year. Female slaves are to have the same rights as 
males : they are to be provided for, when bearing, by 
their master. Judges are to be appointed in all cities. 
Regulations are made respecting a king. An addition 
is made to a priest's perquisites. A test of a false 
prophet is given. Minute regulations are made re- 
specting cities of refuge. Landmarks are not to be 
changed. Two witnesses are to be required for " any 



184 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

iniquity" as well as for "murder." A false witness is 
to be punished as the criminal, if guilty, would be. 
Regulations are given for drafting soldiers for war. 
Trees are not to be destroyed when besieging cities. 
The treatment of a town in case of uncertain murder 
is described. Conditions of marrying a female cap- 
tive are given, etc. There are over sixty amendments 
and additions to the law as contained in Exodus — 
Numbers, in these chapters, and they are such as 
one having the original laws before him would, under 
the circumstances, have made ; but it appears incred- 
ible that one having the laws of Deuteronomy before 
him could have composed those of Exodus — Num- 
bers, as the theory assumes. 

Again, the indirect quotations of the original laws 
and references to them contained in Exodus — Num- 
bers, by the speaker in Deuteronomy, in connection 
with the amendments and additions which he makes, 
are of such a kind as to compel the belief that Exo- 
dus — Numbers were in the hand of the speaker; at 
any rate, they raise a violent presumption that these 
books were already written, and their contents well 
known to the Deuteronomist. 

In about a dozen places, the speaker in Deuteron- 
omy quotes from what God " had commanded " or 
" said," and his quotation or reference is found in the 
previous books. In some instances, the quotations are 
verbal ; in others, free, but including a peculiar word or 
phrase, as not to " lift up " an iron tool on building an 
altar (Deuteronomy xxvii., 5=Exodus xx., 26); to drive 
out the Canaanites "little by little" (Deuteronomy 
vii., 22=Exodus xxiii., 30); God is a "jealous God" 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 85 

(Deuteronomy iv., 24= Exodus xx., 5); thou shalt not 
wear a garment of " divers sorts " (Deuteronomy xxii., 
n=Leviticus xix., 9). Some of these words and 
phrases are used only in the passages quoted. These 
quotations are sufficient to indicate the character of 
the rest of the passages, and the reader can judge of 
their weight in this argument. To an unbiassed critic 
who had no theory to support, they alone would seem 
to be decisive of the whole question. But lest some 
readers should still hesitate to accept this conclusion 
on the testimony of these passages, I will trespass 
upon the patience of others by quoting a few more 
passages which must remove the least shadow of 
doubt. In Deuteronomy i., 16-18, Moses says the 
"judges shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye 
shall hear the small as well as great, and judge right- 
eously between every man and his brother. ... I com- 
manded you at that time [' whilst at Horeb '] all the 
things which ye should do." In Leviticus xix., 15, 
is the original law. In Deuteronomy iii., 18, Moses 
says, addressing the tribes which were to settle on 
the east side of Jordan, " I commanded you at that 
time, saying, Ye shall pass over armed before youi 
brethren," and help them subdue the land first. This 
command is in Numbers xxxii., 20-23. I n Deuter 
onomy xi., 22-25, m order to encourage the people t<? 
go up and take the land, Moses reminds them that the 
" Lord hath said that he will drive out all these na- 
tions from before you." This saying of the Lord is in 
Exodus xxiii., 27-29. In Deuteronomy xviii., 2, he 
says, " The tribe of Levi . . . shall have no inheritance 
among their brethren ; the Lord is their inheritance, as, 



l86 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

he hath said unto them " ; and he said it in Numbers 
xviii., 20. In Deuteronomy xx., 17, Moses repeats the 
" command of the Lord " contained in Exodus xxxiv., 
11, to drive out or exterminate the " Hittites and the 
Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hiv- 
ites and the Jebusites," from the land. In Deuter- 
onomy xxiv., 8, Moses directs the people "to take 
heed in the plague of leprosy to observe diligently and 
do according to all that the priests the Levites shall 
teach you : as I commanded these, so ye shall observe 
to do." This " command " is found in Leviticus xiii., 
14.* 

* A writer in the Unitarian Review, October, 1880, p. 303, after recu.ng the 
stoning of Achan's children, with their father, for his sin, and the hanging of 
seven of Saul's sons for the sin of Saul in slaying the Gibeonites, says, "If they 
had had the law of Deuteronomy, 'The children shall not be put to death for the 
father,' " Joshua would not "have killed Achan's innocent children," nor David 
" have hanged the seven innocent sons of Saul." Perhaps they were no better 
interpreters of the Law of Moses than the Supreme Court of the United States, 
headed by the profound Chief Justice Taney, when he said, "The negroes had r.o 
rights which a white man was bound to respect " ; and, possibly, the apparent con- 
flicc of laws may have puzzled the poorly educated jurists, Joshua and David, 
for the so-called ten tables announced that their God was " a jealous God, visiting- 
the iniquity of the fatlier s upon the children unto the third and fourth genera- 
tion of them that hate him." If, under the light of the nineteenth century, the 
highest court in the United States could announce such an opinion as Chief 
Justice Taney's, may not Joshua have been mistaken three thousand years 
before? More remarkable still, two opposite decisions were made by the same 
court within about a year, touching a more vital point in the Constitution, — the 
constitutionality of the legal-tender law raising paper money to an equality with 
gold. Different interpretations of a law are so far from proving that there is no 
jaw that they prove its existence past all question. 

It may not be inapposite to remind the reader that different interpretations are 
very frequently given of law by different administrations, and that laws for 
generations obsolete or remaining unenforced are revived and enforced, as just 
at this time the English law of eviction, which has been obsolete for two centuries, 
is being enforced in Ireland, or as an old law of Maryland has just been dis- 
covered, which requires the tongue of a Unitarian, one who denies the Trinity, to 
be bored through with an iron, which never was enforced and whose existence 
surprises the present generation. 

He also objects thattwo different reasons would not have been given for keeping 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 187 

But I must refrain from quoting further. Reasonable 
readers have rights which unreasonable ones are bound 
to respect. If these passages are not conclusive and 
do not remove the last shadow of a reasonable doubt, 
then the presence and testimony of Moses himself 
could not dispel it. The author of Deuteronomy was 
familiar with the preceding books, or historical ques- 
tions are incapable of settlement. 

So evident are these references, and so numerous, 
that even Dr. Davidson admits that " it is possible that 
the successive laws may have been given by Moses, 

the Sabbath in Deuteronomy v. and Exodus xx. by the so-called Originist, the 
former because of release from Egyptian bondage, the latter because of God's rest 
from creating. But would the Originist writing after the Deuteronomist, with 
whose reason he was familiar and the people also, and which would be so pleasant 
to them, have given another and obviously much less touching and humane 
reason ? 

The same writer affirms that Deuteronomy and the historical books take a 
wholly different view of the sacerdotal tribe and the priesthood from Exodus — 
Numbers {Unitarian Review, p. 307). He says that in Joshua — Kings the 
restriction to sacrifice to the family of Aaron is unknown. This objection has 
been fully answered in the text. In some cases the law may have been violated 
by supposed necessity, in others priests may have been officiators, but not named. 
Quid facit per alium facit per se ; and so far is it from being true, as this 
writer affirms, that Ezekiel is the parent of the priestly legislation, that he is 
perpetually referring to and quoting the laws relating to sacrifices already in 
existence, as I have most fully illustrated. 

The same writer affirms in italics, on page 305, that the " Deuteronomist is unac- 
quainted with the Book of Origins," or the main portion of the other books of the 
Pentateuch, and appeals to Deuteronomy xii., 8, and Leviticus xiv., 8, 9, to prove 
it. In Deuteronomy, referring to the change in their condition consequent on the 
people's passing over Jordan, the writer says, "Ye shall not do after all the things 
that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes," — that is, 
regarding the law as best you can in your migratory condition. But, in Leviticus, 
the Originist, so called, says that he who regardeth not the law of sacrifice 
referred to " shall be cut off from among his people." But if the Originist wrote 
after the Deuteronomist, as is maintained, would he have written that it was a 
law given on the mount to Moses by Jehovah, when the Deuteronomist had 
written that there was no such law in existence according to these interpreters ? 



1 88 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

from the first code at Sinai till the time of his death in 
Moab ; the legislation being supplemented, enlarged, 
modified, altered as circumstances arose." * And he 
also admits, respecting Deuteronomy, that " it is pos- 
sible indeed to conceive of Moses, provided he wrote 
the preceding books of the Pentateuch, giving a survey 
of the historical circumstances through which he had 
passed at the head of the Israelites, and modifying or 
abrogating such enactments as would be unsuitable to 
the people when they had obtained possession of the 
promised land." f " There is no doubt," he says, " that it 
[Deuteronomy] is built on the historical facts embodied 
in the former parts of the Pentateuch. It alludes to 
them throughout. Yet it is still possible . . . that his 
[the author's] acquaintance with them may have been 
borrowed from oral tradition.'" But, only two pages 
further on, Dr. Davidson says : " These proofs [filling 
three pages] of the Deuteronomist's acquaintance with 
the four preceding books might be multiplied, since 
almost every chapter presents some indication, however 
slight, that written documents were employed by him." $ 
Now pass on seven pages further, and we find Dr. 
Davidson saying, "The Deuteronomist found the first 
four books made up in their present form of two or more 
leading documents, and terminating with Moses' death." 
Comment on such criticism is unnecessary. Dr. Ku- 
enen, who maintains that the chief portion of Exodus 
— Numbers was not composed till two centuries after 
Deuteronomy, must settle the matter as he can with Dr. 
Davidson, who affirms that the "four books," Genesis 

•Vol. I., p. 75. t Vol. I., p. 253. 

$Vol. I., pp. 386, 387. The italics are mine. 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 189 

— Numbers, "in their present form," were in the 
hands of the Deuteronomist. 

III. Another evidence of the time and place and 
manner of writing these books and enacting these laws 
is found in Deuteronomy xxviii.-xxx. compared with 
Leviticus xxvi. At the conclusion of the residence at 
Sinai, when the code and ritual had been given, Moses 
exhorts the people, Leviticus xxvi., to obedience, as 
they were soon to be settled in the promised land, by 
all the motives which could influence a patriotic and 
religious people. He pictures before them all the 
blessings of peace and all the luxuries of prosperity 
consequent upon obedience, and all the desolations 
of war and the horrors of famine and plague which 
will follow disobedience. It was as natural as fit that 
then and there such an earnest and ardent and admon- 
itory address should be made. But the people did 
not enter the land as was expected. They wandered 
about for thirty-eight years, till nearly all who heard 
the address had forgotten it or were dead. We are not 
surprised, therefore, to find, as the people were about 
to enter the land after their long wanderings, and as 
their great leader could not pass over with them, that 
he again addresses them at even greater length and 
with supreme earnestness. The same principles are 
clothed in more glowing language, and are warmed 
with a patriot's anxiety and importunity. The time, 
the circumstances, give coloring to the words spoken. 
Accept the historical account as correct, and both 
speeches find their place and justification. Deny the 
reliableness of the history, and either the one or the 
other of the speeches is superfluous, and its origin can- 



190 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

not be accounted for, nor the location of the one in the 
Book of Leviticus justified. The internal evidence of 
the age and origin of the Pentateuch, derived from the 
construction, contents, and repeated references to the 
other books, and the amendments and repeal of laws 
contained in them, the enactment of new laws de- 
manded by the changed conditions of the people, as 
exhibited in Deuteronomy, would of itself justify the 
belief of the Mosaic Age of these books. 

But there is more evidence of the same kind con- 
tained in the description of the condition of the people, 
and the enactment of new laws, and the amendment of 
old ones, thirty-seven years before, when the people 
were about to enter Canaan from Kadesh, as written in 
the Book of Numbers to which we must now turn our 
attention.* 

IV. The fourteenth chapter of Numbers closes ap- 
parently the account of the residence of the people at 
Kadesh after the repulse of the revolutionary attempt 
to force their way into Canaan. No further account is 
given of them till they appear again at Kadesh in the 
desert of Zin, thirty-seven years afterwards. Of this 
period, we know nothing except the list of stations where 
they encamped, given in the thirty-third chapter, and 
the modified or new laws, given in chapters xv. -xix., 
including the rebellion of Korah. I propose now to 
examine these chapters to see what light they throw 
upon the age and authorship of the Pentateuch. 

These regulations were made with express reference to 

*A writer in the Unitarian Review, October, 1880, page 302, says: "The 
Deuteronomist could not have known the Levitical Jaw as we now have it. . . . He 
flatly contradicts many of its most positive statements." The repeal of some of 
the old laws and the enactment of different ones, as shown above, rather proves 
a familiarity with them. 



EVIDENCE FROM CONSENTS AND STRUCTURE. 191 

the wants of people when settled in the promised land, and 
when they were supposed to be about to enter it. " When 
ye come into the land of your habitations," says Moses, 
you will regard the following laws. As the history re- 
cords, it was supposed by Moses as well as by the 
people that they were to enter at once upon their inheri- 
tance ; and therefore he had so improved the original 
code as to better adapt it to their new condition. There 
is no reason to suppose he would have made these addi- 
tions and amendments, as recorded in the fifteenth chap- 
ter, now, if he had known they were to be wanderers in 
the wilderness one generation, or thirty-seven years 
longer. The history implies the reason why these laws 
were made then, and the implication of immediate en- 
trance "into their habitations" contained in the pub- 
lication of such laws confirms the authenticity of the 
history, and shows the journal-like style of the work. 
The fifteenth chapter was written evidently before the 
repulse took place, and the rebellion was punished by 
the denial of that generation to enter the land. 

Do the laws themselves, as compared with other 
laws, throw any light upon the origin of these books ? 
Chapter xv., 1-16, extends the regulation respecting 
strangers at the passover to all the sacrificial ritual, as if 
the people were to be so situated that strangers would 
be very likely to join them more frequently than they 
had done before ; and, most obviously, strangers would 
be more numerous when they were settled in the land. 
A.gain, the quantity of flour and oil and wine is specified 
for each offering of a lamb or of a ram or of a bullock, 
as if there would be hereafter no lack of flour and oil 
and wine as there was in the desert, when the quantity 



IQ2 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

for an offering was not specified (Leviticus ii.), — indi- 
cating that they were about to change a nomadic for 
an agricultural life. 

Numbers xv., 17-21. This law of the "heave offer- 
ing" of a "cake of the first of the dough," with grain 
taken from the " threshing floor •" is new, and implies 
that they were soon to be husbandmen. No such cere- 
mony of thankfulness could have been observed in the 
desert. 

Numbers xv., 22-29. " A kid of the goats " is added 
to the sin-offering for sins of ignorance of the congre- 
gation (Leviticus iv., 13-21). The cause of this addi- 
tion does not appear. But emphasis is laid on the 
obligation of " the stranger that sojourneth " with them 
to obey this law, as if more such persons would be 
likely to be among them. This is new. Numbers xv., 
30-36. The presumptuous sinner is to " be cut off 
from among his people" ; and a case of such presumpt- 
uous violation of the law of observing the Sabbath is 
brought before Moses, and he decides that the form of 
"cutting off from the people," or that capital punish- 
ment, shall be stoning. This law and the form of the 
penalty are both new. 

Numbers xv., 37-41. The law requiring the wear- 
ing of " fringes on the borders of their garments " is 
new. This law, unlike the others, does not include 
" strangers," as it indicates race. There is nothing in 
either this law or the one before to indicate the time in 
which they were made ; but their connection with the 
others raises a strong presumption that they were en- 
acted at the same time, and before the repulse on " the 
hill even unto Hormah " and the rebellion of Korah. 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 93 

Numbers xvi. contains an account of the rebellion 
of Korah and Dathan and Abiram and On, — the 
first a Levite, the other three Reubenites. That a 
second rebellion should have sprung up just at this 
time among the chief men, since Moses and Aaron had 
failed to take them into the promised land and were 
about to lead them back into the desert, is very credi- 
ble. They gave as a justification for their rebellion 
the very plausible, not to say satisfactory, reason that 
Moses and Aaron had taken too much upon themselves, 
as the recent great reverses and the sufferings of the 
great and terrible wilderness journey ings threatened 
showed. Reuben was the eldest son, and Judah the 
fourth : why should not the children of Reuben lead in 
the march, and command instead of being placed behind 
Judah, as second in rank ? Korah was a descendant 
of an elder son of Kohath than Elzaphan, who had been 
made " chief of the families of the Kohathites," and 
was cousin of Moses and Aaron, and might well aspire, 
after such disasters and such prospects, to a higher 
place. The time and circumstances correspond with 
the insurrection, and are its sufficient reason. The 
rebellion was nipped in the bud by the destruction of 
the leaders in a marvellous manner, and the right of 
Aaron to be the head of the priesthood is vindicated 
by the budding of his rod when all the other rods of 
the tribes budded not (chap. xvii.). Then follows, in 
chapter xviii., a repetition of many of the laws re- 
specting the priesthood, with additions and changes, 
and a special charge to Aaron respecting his official du- 
ties and perquisites as distinguished from the Levites. 
These laws settled the questions in dispute between 



194 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

the Kohathites and the priests, Aaron and his sons. 
In verse 8, the " anointing " of the priests is spoken 
of, referring to the law which is recorded in Leviticus 
viii., 30. It is announced (chap, xviii., 12, 13) that the 
"first-fruits " should be given to Aaron, which is new; 
verse 14, every devoted thing is given to Aaron (Levit- 
icus xxvii., 28), also new ; verse 13, redeemed firstlings 
are to be Aaron's (Exodus xxxiv., 9), new. 

Chapter xviii., 20, informs us that Aaron (the priest- 
hood) should "have no inheritance in the land " as the 
Levites did, which is new; but the Levites must give a 
tenth part of their tithe to the priesthood (verses 26, 28). 
In this manner, all future dispute about the income of 
the priests is avoided. That this special legislation 
should have taken place at this critical time is strong 
evidence of the substantial accuracy of the history. 
And the legislation without the history would be strong 
evidence that something very important had transpired 
in the camp to render it necessary. 

The nineteenth chapter contains a minute account of 
the preparation and use of the water of purification for 
any one who had been made unclean by contact with a 
dead body ; the water to be used with the ashes of a 
red heifer. The occasion of this law is found in the 
plague, recorded in the sixteenth chapter, which carried 
off many thousands of the people. The whole cere- 
mony was a most vigorous and efficient health law, and 
being enacted at this particular time corroborates the 
history. 

All these laws indicate special causes for their en- 
actment, and justify the belief that these chapters (xv. 
-xix.) were written at the time the people were 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 1 95 

encamped near Kadesh, — the xv., before their repulse, 
when they were soon expecting to enter the prom- 
ised land, and the xvi. - xix., after that repulse. For 
farther evidence of the truth of these accounts, the 
reader is referred to Undesigned Coincidences, where the 
subject of Korah's rebellion is more fully examined. 

V. After the wanderings in the wilderness were over 
and the people were encamped near Jordan, we find 
Moses giving more directions to the people, some 
entirely new, some modifications of previous laws. Let 
us see if there is anything in these directions or laws 
which will throw light upon the time and cause of their 
enactment, or anything in the condition of the people 
which will account for these laws being given at this 
particular time. 

In Numbers xxviii., 1-8, the daily offering is spoken 
of, required in Exodus xxix., 38-42 ; and there is added 
to the original law the following amendment : " In the 
holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be 
poured." Both the place and the kind of wine are 
new. The original word for wine is translated in 
Leviticus x., 9, " strong drink." If it means " old wine," 
as the rabbins say, it implies that they were soon to be 
settled where they could keep wine till it was old, 
which they had not been able to do before. And the 
command to pour it " in the holy place " indicates that 
they might be tempted when settled in the land, by 
remoteness, to pour it elsewhere. Numbers xxviii., 4, 
and Exodus xxix., 39, are in the same words, showing 
that the writer of Numbers was familiar with the old 
law. 

Numbers xxxviiL 9, 10. The Sabbath-day offering of 



19^ A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

two lambs is new, and implies that they would be so 
situated that their flocks would permit such a draft on 
them, and also distinguish that day from other days. 

Numbers xxviii., n-15. These new-moon offerings 
are new, and also imply an increase of their herds and 
flocks and vintage and olive-trees and grain, to justify 
another festival of their own nation at the time of the 
idolatrous festival of other nations, and thus secure 
them from joining their neighbors in idolatrous rites. 

In chapter xxviii., 16-25, tne proper manner of keep- 
ing the passover is described. In Leviticus xxiii., 5-8, 
no particulars are given. Verses 19-23 in Numbers 
are new. The animals, bullocks, and lambs to be 
offered in sacrifice on each of the seven days are 
specified : fourteen bullocks, forty-nine lambs, and seven 
goats in all. This free use of animals certainly indicates 
a larger supply at hand than they had previously had. 

Numbers xxviii., 26-31. The description of "the 
day of first-fruits " differs in no important particular 
from that in Leviticus xxiii., 19-21. There is no 
obvious reason why it should have been inserted here, 
except that it was intimately connected with the new 
moon and passover. 

Numbers xxix., 1-6, prescribes the sacrifices which 
are to be offered at the feast of trumpets, which is not 
done in Leviticus xxiii., 24, 25. This again shows 
clearly that flocks and herds would be more numerous, 
as they certainly would be as soon as they had settled 
in the promised land. 

Numbers xxix., 7-1 1, describes the services of the 
holy convocation on the great day of atonement, and 
prescribes the sacrifices which must be offered, of 
which nothing is said in Leviticus xxiii., 26-32. 



EVIDENCE FROM CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE. 197 

Numbers xxix., 12-34. The holy convocation of 
the feast of tabernacles and the feast itself are fully 
described day by day ; but in Leviticus xxxiii., 34-44, 
only briefly. Numbers prescribes the sacrifices for 
each day, but says nothing about booths. Leviticus 
speaks of the booths, but does not specify the sacrifices 
or special ceremonies. The animals ordered for sacri- 
fice during this greatest of festivals are seventy-one 
bullocks, fifteen rams, ninety-nine lambs, and seven 
goats. This number of animals indicates a near ap- 
proach to more prosperous conditions than they were 
enjoying. 

Numbers xxix., 35-40. We read in this section of 
the "solemn assembly'' on the eighth day of the feast 
of the tabernacles, which is barely alluded to in Leviti- 
cus xxiii., 7>6> This shows clearly that this great feast, 
as well as the others, was not only rarely kept, but that 
they must have been destitute, when kept, of what 
gave them their hold upon the people in the land of 
promise. Nor is it probable that when they were 
settled in the promised land they were able to keep 
these great festivals, or did keep them, according to 
the ideal as prescribed in these laws. They all imply 
an immediate possession of their inheritance. And this 
necessary implication of the laws in themselves accords 
with the history and authenticates it. 

Numbers xxx. It is evident from this chapter that 
the judges had had serious perplexity in administering 
the law of vows as recorded in the twenty-seventh chap- 
ter of Leviticus; and some general principles to aid 
the judges are laid down in this chapter. (1) Every- 
man must do according to all that proceedeth out of 
his mouth ; but (2) if a woman vowed, there were con- 



198 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

ditions of fulfilment depending on her father's hearing 
her; if (3) she was married or betrothed, there were 
conditions of fulfilment depending upon her husband 
or betrothed hearing her ; if (4) she was a widow or 
divorced, all shall stand ; if (5) she is a wife in her 
husband's house, the conditions of fulfilment will vary 
as he did or did not hear her vow. 

There is nothing in this chapter to indicate when it 
was written ; but as vows were often, if not always con- 
nected with sacrifices, it is very probable that the full 
treatment of that subject in connection with these great 
feasts may have opened this question of the obligation 
of vows, especially when the vow must be paid by the 
husband or guardian of the person making the vow. 

Taking all these new laws and amendments of old 
laws into the account, it is quite impossible to escape 
the conclusion that they were written when the history 
affirms that they were written, and when the contents 
of the laws themselves require them to have been 
written. This origin of these laws, or the most skilful 
and criminal forgery, is the only possible conclusion of 
the whole matter. 

SECTION III. UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 

I wish now to call attention to another class of phe- 
nomena denoting the time in which the Pentateuch 
was composed. I refer to Undesigned Coincidences, — 
correspondences so slight yet so peculiar as to show 
that an eye-witness recorded the events to which they 
relate.* 

♦About thirty years ago, I read a small work by Blunt on this subject. As all 
my references to that work are lost, I am unable to tell for how many of these 
coincidences I am indebted to him, and can make only this general acknowledg- 
ment. 



UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 199 

(1) An instance of this kind is the rate of travelling 
attributed to the people on their departure from Egypt. 
In about six or eight days, we find that they had 
marched as far as Marah, which was two-thirds of the 
way to Mt. Sinai from Rameses. But they did not 
reach Sinai under forty-five days. What more natural 
than that they should travel thus rapidly the first part 
of the way to escape the enemy, and then slacken their 
speed to give repose to the feeble and time for the 
stragglers to come up ? Besides, it will be found upon 
examination that they fled much more rapidly from 
Rameses till the passage of the Red Sea than they did 
afterwards. This is entirely natural ; and, when we 
reflect that the writer has only incidentally given us a 
clew to discover that such was the fact, it forces on us 
the conviction that he was one of the company.* 

(2) The original direction respecting the order of 
marching was changed for the greater convenience of 
those who bore the tabernacle and its furniture. It is 
distinctly stated in the general orders, as recorded in 
Numbers ii., that after six tribes have moved forward, 

* The peculiar and apparently unreasonable route which Moses took in leaving 
Egypt, leading the people into a cul de sac, — the sea on the one hand and the 
mountains on the other, and Pharaoh behind them, — is attributed by the pious 
historian, writing perhaps half a century afterward, to the special direction of 
Jehovah to Moses in order probably that He might show forth His power to the 
fleeing nation, and give them courage to persist in the great undertaking of escap- 
ing from bondage and returning to the land of their remote ancestors. This may 
be so. But I am inclined to another, and to me more probable as it is a more 
reasonable, explanation of this remarkable mistake of Moses, as it appears to us 
without the historian's theory or knowledge of its cause. Let the reader bear in 
mind that God is spoken of by this very pious writer as directing everythii g and 
causing everything, and that Moses is scarcely a free agent in anything. Now, I 
submit as most probable that, when Pharaoh learned that the people had fled, he 
changed his mind and determined to intercept their march. He accordingly 
pursued with his horsemen and chariots, and succeeded in outflanking them and 



2 00 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

when they decamp, then the Levites shall set forward 
with the tabernacle. But in the tenth chapter, where 
we have an account of their setting out on their march, 
we read that, after three tribes had set forward, the 
tabernacle was taken down, and the sons of Gershon 
and the sons of Merari set forward bearing the taber- 
nacle. Then came three tribes more, and then the 
Kohathites set forward bearing the sanctuary, the holy 
utensils, the altars, and the ark. And a good reason 
appears why this change was made. The tabernacle 
would be set up ready to receive the sacred things as 
soon as those who bore them should arrive upon the 
ground of re-encampment. 

(3) In the fourth chapter, we read that a division 
was made of the different parts of the tabernacle be- 
tween the sons of Gershon, Merari, and Kohath. The 
sons of Gershon were to bear the coverings of the tab- 
ernacle ; the sons of Merari were to bear the pillars and 
boards and sockets ; the sons of Kohath were to bear 
the sacred vessels, the altars, and the ark. Now, if we 
turn to the seventh chapter, we read of the trains and 

gettingin their front before they had reached the north-western point of the sea. 
Moses had his choice cither to fight Pharaoh, now in front of him, or flee as 
well as he could down the country by the side of the sea. He chose the latter 
alternative, and by removing his marching signal to the rear, and deceiving 
Pharaoh as to his true position, he gained time, by taking advantage of the 
darkness and of a very low stage of the water, to get the people over to the oiher 
side. When the day dawned, Pharaoh attempted to cross after them, but the 
muddy bottom and the return of deep water prevented him, and a large number 
of his army perished in the attempt. Moses turned down by the sea because he 
was compelled to by the position of the Egyptians; and after their wonderful 
escape the people saw in it the guidance of their God ; and the devout historian 
of another generation introduces Jehovah as the counsellor and guide of M ases 
in the whole transaction. Nothing could be more natural. But the reader of to- 
day must recognize in his study of these early records this pervading language of 
piety, and interpret them accordingly. I am not satisfied with Brugsch's hypo- 
thesis respecting the route of the escaping Israelites. 



UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 201 

wagons which were provided some days after to carry 
the tabernacle. Without giving the reason for the un- 
equal distribution, two wagons a?id four oxen were given 
to the sons of Gershon, and four wagons and eight oxen 
to the sons of Merari. This difference in capacity for 
carrying freight corresponds to the difference in the 
materials which the two parties were to carry, Merari 
having much the heavier portion, as is found by look- 
ing back four chapters, where the distribution of mate- 
rials is made It is hardly credible that a later his- 
torian would have separated these items in this way, 
and yet have, thus incidentally, preserved the corre- 
spondence between the parts. 

(4) The omission of the mention of Simeon in the 
blessings which Moses pronounced upon the tribes, as 
recorded in Deuteronomy xxxiii., has given rise to no 
little speculation. If we turn back to the twenty-fifth 
chapter of Numbers, a reason will be found for this 
omission which is entirely satisfactory. We read in 
the chapter referred to that a terrible plague smote the 
camp of Israel on account of the introduction of a Mid- 
ianitish woman into the camp under very offensive cir- 
cumstances. Twenty thousand died of the plague be- 
fore it was stayed. This terrible calamity, which hap- 
pened but a short time before Moses pronounced his 
blessings on the tribes, was caused by the act of "Zimri, 
the son of Salu, a prince of the chief house of the Simeon- 
ites." It appears also that the plague was confined to 
the tribe of Simeon ; for we find in the census, taken 
but a short time after, that this tribe had diminished 
thirty-seven thousand. It is not at all wonderful, there- 
fore, that Moses should omit to bless such a tribe, when 



202 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

their diminished numbers were a standing witness of 
God's displeasure, and when the plague, which had so 
devastated their part of the camp, had but just been 
stayed, and was fresh in the memory of all. Nor is this 
the conclusion of the matter. We find that, when the 
tribe took possession of the promised land, Simeon was 
made a barrier both of Egypt and the Philistines, so 
that he must first suffer in case of attack from that 
quarter. These facts, so purely incidental in the man- 
ner of their relation, scattered through different chap- 
ters, so perfectly accounting for other facts, remarkable 
in their character yet equally incidentally related, with- 
out any reasons given for such strange phenomena, bear 
with no little weight in the scale of the authenticity and 
age of these books. That they were not introduced 
into the Pentateuch for the purpose of supplying the 
material for this argument to future investigators of the 
age of the work is evident enough. The supposition 
is absurd. 

(5) The account of the visit of Balaam for the pur- 
pose of cursing Israel demands notice. After the in- 
effectual attempts made by Balak, King of Moab, to 
induce Balaam to curse Israel, and after Balaam had 
obtained all the gifts which he was able to wring from 
the frightened king, we read, Numbers xxiv., 25, that 
"Balaam rose up and went and returned to his place." 
" His place," we find in chapter xxii., 5, to be "Pethor," 
a city of Mesopotamia, on the Euphrates. But we are 
surprised when we read in chapter xxxi., 8, where the 
chiefs of Midian are named who had been slain in bat- 
tle, to find that " Balaam also, the son of Beor," was 
slain by the sword. How came he here, among the 



UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 203 

Midianites ? He had left Balak, King of Moab, "to 
return home." If we turn back to the twenty-second 
chapter, we find that the "elders of Midian" went with 
the elders of Moab, with the " rewards of divination in 
their hand," to invite Balaam to come and "curse 
Israel." The elders of Midian are no more mentioned 
in the history ; yet in this brief line we find the cause of 
Balaam's taking Midian in his way, on his return home. 
More gifts he would obtain, if possible, before he left 
the country. He was killed while he stopped among 
that people to finish the object for which he had made 
his journey from the East. The presence of the his- 
torian of these facts on the spot where they transpired 
seems certain. 

(6) In the account of the rebellion and destruction 
of Korah and his company there are some very strik- 
ing indications of the writer's presence at the time. 
The leaders of the rebels, as we learn from Numbers 
xvi., 1, were "Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of 
Kohath, the son of Levi ; and Dathan and Abiram, the 
sons of Eliab ; and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reu- 
ben." How came it to pass that the tribe of Reuben, or 
a part of it, and the Kohathites should be engaged in 
this rebellion? If we look back thirteen chapters to 
chapter in., 29, we shall find that in recording the loca- 
tion of the Levites in the camp, the writer states that 
"the families of the sons of Kohath shall pitch on the 
side of the tabernacle southward" And still further 
back, in chapter i.i., 10, we read that "on the south side 
shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben." At the 
distance of thirteen chapters, and separated from each 
other by one chapter, we find statements showing that 



204 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

the tribe of Reuben and the Kohathites were on the 
same side of the camp, and in close proximity. It 
would be very easy for them, therefore, to confer to- 
gether as they are represented as doing. 

(7) Again, as we read the account of the punishment 
inflicted on the rebels, as recorded in the sixteenth 
chapter, we seem to see the earth open, and Korah, 
Dathan, and Abiram, and " their sons and their wives 
and their little children," all swallowed up alive. What, 
then, is our surprise, when we read, ten chapters later, 
in the twenty-sixth chapter, which contains a record of 
events which transpired thirty-six years afterwards, that 
" the children of Korah died not." We turn back to 
re-examine the sixteenth chapter, to see if we were mis- 
taken. We there find that the people are commanded 
to " depart from the tents of those wicked men." " So 
they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and 
Abiram, on every side." This tabernacle appears to 
have been occupied in common by the rebels as their 
place of meeting with their associates. And then we 
read that " Dathan and Abiram came out and stood in 
the door of their tents, and their wives and their sons 
and their little ones." This public tent of meeting, it 
seems, stood near the tents of these two men, who were 
Reubenites, and not near the tent of Korah, who was 
a Levite; so that when "the earth opened her mouth 
and swallowed them up, and their houses [tents] and 
all the men [that is, the rebels] that appertained to 
Korah, and all their goods," the children of Korah, 
who were in the family tent among the Levites, were 
not destroyed. Thus the apparent contradiction is rec- 
onciled in such a manner as to indicate that an eye-wit- 



UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 205 

ness was the historian. I cannot forbear recalling the 
attention of the reader to another feature of this trans- 
action. Korah, the leader of this rebellion, was son of 
Izhar, the second son of Kohath, Amram, the father of 
Moses and Aaron, being the first. But the chief oi the 
Kohathites was Elzaphan, the son of Uzziel, the fourth 
son of Kohath. It was natural, therefore, that envious 
feelings should arise, on his part, against the hardship 
of the younger branch of the family. The posterity of 
Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob, would likewise be not 
a little dissatisfied that Judah, a younger brother, 
should be placed at the head of all the tribes. 

(8) In the tenth chapter of Leviticus, we read that 
"Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of 
them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense 
thereon, and offered stra?igefire before the Lord." For 
this act, they were smitten dead by fire "from the Lord." 
And " Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the 
uncle of Aaron," carried their dead bodies "from before 
the sanctuary out of the camp." No cause for this 
high-handed act of these two sons of Aaron is given by 
the writer; but he immediately after records a new law: 
"Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou [Aaron] nor 
thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of 
the congregation, lest ye die. . . . And that ye may put a 
difference between holy and unholy, and between clean 
and unclean." The cause of this new enactment was, 
most obviously, the sacrilegious act of Aaron's sons, 
committed when they were intoxicated, and did not put 
a difference between "holy and unholy, and between 
clean and unclean." Such gross outrages must not be 
repeated, and a law is enacted to prevent their recur- 



2o6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

rence. Here we not only have a new law to meet an 
emergency, but we also have a law based upon the 
probable condition of those two priests, when the fact 
of their being intoxicated is not mentioned. 

(9) A farther coincidence demands notice in this 
connection. This act of Nadab and Abihu took place 
on the eighth day after the tabernacle was erected ; for 
in Exodus xl., 2, we read that the "tabernacle of the 
tent of the congregation " was to be set up on " the 
first day of the first month." In the thirteenth verse, 
we read that Aaron and his sons were to be anointed 
and clothed in their holy garments for their sacred 
office. After seven chapters in Leviticus, giving direc- 
tions about particular sacrifices which were to be 
offered in the tabernacle, we find in the eighth and 
ninth chapters a specific account of the consecration 
of Aaron and his sons which continued seven days 
(chap, viii., 33). On the eighth day (chap, ix., 1), 
new ceremonies were performed by these priests, their 
seven days of confinement and seclusion being over; 
and it is on this eighth day that these sons of Aaron, 
once more associating with their friends, indulged 
probably so freely in the use of the cup as to profane 
the Lord by attempting to serve in their holy office 
while intoxicated. How natural that men who had 
been accustomed to the moderate social glass should 
indulge thus freely after such a week of seclusion ! 
Yet of all this series of causes the writer says not a 
word ; nor is there the remotest ground for the sup- 
position that he had arranged these incidents to fur- 
nish us with this argument for the age of his writing. 
That the narrator was on the spot and related what he 
saw is too obvious to require comment. 



UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 207 

(10) Nor have we yet done with this account. These 
dead bodies were carried " out of the camp " just six 
days before the passover. Turning forward now twen- 
ty-five chapters, which are filled with the transactions 
of these six days, to the ninth chapter of Numbers, 
we come to the fourteenth day of the first month, on 
which the passover was to be kept. We here find an 
account of its observance ; and we read " there were 
certain men who were defiled by the dead body of a man, 
so that they could not keep the passover on that day ; 
and they came before Moses and Aaron," and said 
that they were defiled and were thus prevented from 
offering their offering unto the Lord. " Seven days," 
which were necessary for the purification of those who 
were unclean by contact with a dead body, had not 
transpired since Mishael and Elzaphan had carried out 
their kinsmen's dead bodies, and hence they could not 
eat of the passover or offer the sacrifice. It is proba- 
ble that these were the men who came to Moses, as 
above related ; for such a complaint would be likely 
to originate in the first instance among the chief men, 
and these men were of that class. The phrase, " the 
dead body of a man," being the legal term by which 
ritual uncleanness from contact with the dead is 
expressed, by no means shows, or implies, that there 
was but one dead body. Three implied conditions are 
found in this narration, two of them connected with 
other facts related ten and twenty chapters distant, 
and so related as to show clearly that the writer of 
these accounts must have been an eye-witness of what 
he relates, or at least a contemporary of the events, 
and narrating what he well knew was transpiring. Let 



208 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

these ten illustrations of "undesigned coincidences" 
suffice. 

SECTION IV. EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 

Another characteristic of these books, showing their 
journal-like character, and indicating a writer in the 
camp of Israel, is found in the minuteness of the details 
in many parts of the narrative, and their repetition 
under such circumstances as to exculpate any later 
writer from being the author of such useless defmite- 
ness and wearisome repetitions; and yet these same 
circumstances demanded of the desert-journalist just 
such a minuteness and repetition. These phenomena 
have a twofold power : they equally demand an ancient, 
and forbid a modern, writer. Let us now examine 
some of them. 

(i) In the census of the people, an account of which 
is contained in the first chapter of Numbers, there is an 
illustration of the recording, at the time, of work done, 
or of the journal-like character of the book. First, we 
have the names, not only of the superintendents of the 
census of each tribe, but also the names of their fathers, 
which it is not probable would have been given by a 
writer in the time of Ezra. Then we have repeated be- 
fore the round number of each tribe the formula under 
which the census was taken, making a repetition of the 
same words twelve times, which it is difficult to believe 
an historian a thousand or eight hundred years later 
would have done ; but it is very probable it would be 
done, when the separate papers of enrolment were 
passed in and recorded or filed. Seven lines of the 
nine which constituted the return of each tribe are, 



EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 209 

word for word, the same. A later historian of the 
transaction, with these returns before him, would, at 
the most, have written the heading but once ; and then, 
after this description of the persons enrolled, he would 
have named the tribes and their number in order. Of 
all this, Josephus only says (chap, viii., 2), "The num- 
ber of the offerers [of the half-shekels, as represented 
by this census] was six hundred and five thousand five 
hundred and fifty." 

(2) Another illustration of the time and place of writ- 
ing this Book of Numbers is contained in the second 
chapter, in which the order of the encampment is speci- 
fied with great minuteness. The names of the tribes 
are given, and also the name of the "captain" of the 
tribe is given, and, yet more, the name of the captain's 
father, and also the number in the tribe according to 
the census, and, finally, the whole number in each of 
the four divisions which were encamped on the four 
sides of the tabernacle, the account filling thirty-two 
verses of the chapter. All this would be very necessary 
in the order for arranging the camp at first; but what 
historian in the time of Ezra would have given an ac- 
count of the camp in this manner ? Josephus illustrates 
this admirably (chap, xii., 5) : " When they set up the 
tabernacle, they received it into the midst of their camp, 
three of the tribes pitching their tents on each side of 
it." And all that is said by Josephus respecting the 
elaborate arrangement in the next chapter — abridged 
in the paragraph below — is that "the priests had the 
first place about the tabernacle ; then the Levites." 

(3) Then, in the third chapter, there is a record of 
the distribution of the material of the tabernacle and 



2IO A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

its furniture among the priests and Levites, whose order 
of encampment is minutely specified inside the other 
tribes and around the tabernacle, which was their 
special charge. The sons of Gershon shall have charge 
"of the covering of the tent and the hanging for the 
door of the tabernacle of the congregation and the 
hangings of the court and the curtain for the door of 
the court . . . and the cords of it." And the charge of 
Kohath " shall be the ark and the table and the candle- 
stick and the altars and the vessels of the sanctuary 
and the hanging and all the service thereof." "And 
the charge of the sons of Merari shall be the boards 
of the tabernacle, and the bars thereof, and the pillars 
thereof, and the sockets thereof, and all the vessels 
thereof, . . . and the pillars of the court round about, 
and their sockets and their pins and their cords." This 
has certainly the air of the camp and the desert and the 
time of the great migration. 

(4) But there is yet more of this, and more even, if 
possible, to the purpose. How shall that portion of the 
tabernacle furniture which the sons of Kohath are to 
carry, and which was holy, and which none but a priest 
could handle on pain of death, be approached, pre- 
pared, and borne? In the fourth chapter, from the 
fourth to the tenth verses, we have a minute description 
of the manner in which Aaron and his sons "shall cover 
the ark of testimony with the covering veil, and shall 
put thereon the covering of badgers' skins, and shall 
spread over it a cloth wholly of blue, and shall put in 
the staves thereof," by which it is to be carried. "And 
upon the table of shew bread they shall spread a cloth 
of blue and put thereon the dishes, and the spoons, and 



EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 211 

the bowls and covers, . . . and they shall spread upon 
them a cloth of scarlet, and cover the same with a cov- 
ering of badgers' skins, and shall put in the staves 
thereof." And the "candlestick, and his lamps, and 
his tongs, and his snuff dishes, and all the oil vessels 
thereof," are to be covered with "a cloth of blue," and 
to be put into " a covering of badgers' skins and put 
upon a bar"; "and upon the golden altar they shall 
spread a cloth of blue and cover it with a covering of 
badgers' skins," "and they shall take all the instru- 
ments of ministry . . . and put them in a cloth of blue, 
and cover them with a covering of badgers' skins, and 
shall put them on a bar ; and they shall take away the 
ashes from the altar, and spread a purple cloth thereon ; 
and they shall put upon it all the vessels thereof, where- 
with they minister about it, even the censers, the flesh- 
hooks and the shovels and the basins, all the vessels 
of the altar, and they shall spread over it a covering of 
badgers' skins, and put to the staves of it " ; then, and 
not till then, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear 
them. Then the service of the sons of Gershon and 
Merari is to be arranged by Aaron and his sons, and a 
census of these families is to be taken of all males from 
thirty to fifty years old, that proper relays and reliefs 
might be made while marching and in camp. 

What I affirm is that all this minute direction and 
organization of the Levites and priests indicates, de- 
mands for its justification, its cause, the precise time, 
and place, and circumstances which the history de- 
scribes; and that no historian of the nation in the 
time of Ezra and Nehemiah would have written in this 
manner. I pass by the fact that the " shittim wood," 



212 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

of which the wood-work of the tabernacle and its furni- 
ture was made, was abundant about Mount Sinai and 
rare in Canaan, and that the " badgers' skins " were 
most probably the skins of a fish which abounded in 
the Red Sea, as I do not wish to introduce anything as 
fact into this Study which may be challenged. 

(5) But I have not done. I must challenge the 
reader's patience still further. I cite as a striking 
proof of the authenticity and age of the Pentateuch 
the minute account of the offerings made by the princes 
of Israel to the tabernacle during the period of its 
dedication. It is contained in the seventh chapter of 
Numbers, commencing with the twelfth verse. Each 
prince brought his offering on a day by himself, so that 
on twelve different days we have the entry made by the 
scribe in the journal of the offering. Each prince 
offered the same gifts. The wording of the entry is in 
each case the same. Leave a blank in either of the 
entries for the names of the princes, and they will read 
alike. I will give the first entry : " And he that offered 
his offering the first day was Nahshon, the son of 
Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah; and his offering 
was one silver charger, the weight thereof was a hun- 
dred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy 
shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary ; both of them 
were full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat-offer- 
ing ; one spoon of ten shekels of gold full of incense ; 
one young bullock, one ram, one lamb of the first year, 
for a burnt-offering ; one kid of the goats for a sin- 
offering; and for a sacrifice of peace-offerings, two 
oxen, five rams, five he-goats, five lambs of the first 
year. This was the offering of Nahshon, the son of 
Amminadab." 



EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 213 

Now, instead of simply saying that each of the 
other princes of the tribes offered in like manner the 
same offerings unto the Lord, the writer goes on and 
repeats this inventory eleven times, through eighty 
verses. It is incredible that a later writer, giving such 
an account, should proceed in this manner. It appears 
altogether like an entry made by the scribe to see that 
the tribes did what was required of them, though no 
mention of such requisition is made in the record. I 
have had the curiosity to turn again to Josephus to see 
how, in his summary of the law, he manages this matter, 
and will quote the passage which relates to these of- 
ferings, that the reader may see the difference between 
the style of a later writer and that of the old journal- 
ists. Josephus says : " Every head of a tribe brought 
a bowl, a charger, and a spoon of ten daricks full of 
incense. Now the charger and bowl were of silver, and 
together they weighed two hundred shekels, but the 
bowl cost no more than seventy shekels ; and these 
were full of fine flour mingled with oil, such as they 
used on the altar about the sacrifices. They brought 
also a young bullock and a ram, with a lamb a year 
old, for a whole burnt-offering ; as also a goat, for the 
forgiveness of sins. Every one of the heads of the 
tribes brought also other sacrifices, called peace-offer- 
ings ; for every day, two bulls and five rams, with lambs 
of a year old and kids of the goats. These heads of 
the tribes were twelve days in sacrificing, one sacrific- 
ing every day." The contrast between these two ac- 
counts clearly shows us how an historian living long 
after the events, as in the time of Ezra, would have 
managed such a subject. 



214 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

(6) Another illustration of this head of my argument 
is found in the wearisomely minute diagnostics of the 
leprosy in men, houses, and garments (Leviticus xiii., 
xiv.). Two long chapters, of nearly sixty verses each, 
are filled with the repulsive details of the indications 
and purification of this most loathsome of all diseases. 
I must be excused from quoting any of it. No more 
modern historian would thus burden his pages ; but 
then and there it was necessary, for definite rules must 
be given for the guidance of the priests. Indeed, the 
whole of this portion of the Pentateuch which refers to 
ritual impurities indicates clearly enough that it had its 
birth in the camp, among a people just emerging from 
barbarism. 

(7) Perhaps the most marked of all these laboriously 
minute descriptions and repetitions is to be found in 
the last half of Exodus, where the tabernacle and its 
furniture and the priests' garments are described in the 
most accurate manner, even to the tassels and pins 
and taches (Exodus xxv. - xxx.). Moses brings this 
minute description of the whole sacerdotal dress and 
tabernacle construction and incense manufacture with 
him from the Mount. It is precisely like the specifi- 
cations in a modern contract for building a dwelling- 
house or making a garment or a confection, but more 
minute, if possible. The work is given out by Moses ; 
and, as the workmen bring back to him the portion 
which they undertook to make, it is entered again with 
the same minute description in the Pentateuch (Exodus 
xxxvi. -xxxix.). So that we have a duplicate descrip- 
tion of all these articles, so wearisomely minute that we 



EVIDENCE FROM MINUTENESS OF DETAILS. 215 

can hardly have patience to read it once. Admit that 
this was written on the spot, and all this minuteness 
and duplication is accounted for : deny this, and there 
is no possible reason why such a minute detail of these 
articles should be repeated, even if we can discover 
why they should be once described. It seems incredi- 
ble that any later writer could have done it. Of the 
"pattern given in the Mount," which is so minutely 
described, before the work was done, in the Pentateuch, 
Josephus only says (chap, v., 8), " He [God] had sug- 
gested to him [Moses] that he would have a tabernacle 
built for him, and that the tabernacle should be of 
such measure and construction as he had showed 
him." Josephus then gives a careful description of 
the work. There is no repetition of particulars. 

To feel the full force of this argument, it is necessary 
that one should read carefully the account in the Pen- 
tateuch, and at one sitting, if possible. 

I should be glad to go into a consideration of the 
specific directions given touching many of the condi- 
tions of camp life, and especially those health regula- 
tions which it was necessary for a people thus sojourning 
to observe, and which no modern historian could dwell 
upon so long and minutely as they are dwelt upon in 
the Pentateuch ; but the nature of the subjects, as well 
as the great length of my Study, requires that I should 
pass them over. Their bearing upon the point which I 
am considering is clear and strong; and, in connection 
with some of the circumstances which I have already 
referred to, they furnish evidence, almost conclusive in 
itself, of the antiquity of the work in which they are 
contained. 



2l6 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

SECTION V. EVIDENCE FROM CHASMS IN THE HISTORY. 

The chasms in the history are another indication 
of the antiquity of the Pentateuch, (i) The space of 
nearly four hundred years, according to the reckoning 
which commends itself to many scholars, from the 
descent of Jacob and his family into Egypt to the de- 
parture of the people, is passed over in almost entire 
silence ; and so also are the youth and manhood of 
Moses, in which Josephus and the rabbins revel and 
glory. Only those incidents are mentioned which are 
necessary to an introduction to the great work of deliv- 
erance from Egyptian bondage. We can hardly sup- 
pose that a writer of the time of Ezra would have left 
such gaps in his history. The particular and wonderful 
events in the life of Moses before his flight to Midian, 
which tradition had handed down, and which attracted 
'the Jews in the time of Josephus, could hardly have 
escaped the notice of earlier writers. They would have 
filled up these chasms with such traditions as had come 
down to them respecting the marvellous life of their 
great law-giver. That such would have been their 
course can hardly be doubted by any one who is ac- 
quainted with Jewish writers, and knows how prone 
they were to introduce traditionary tales where histor- 
ical facts failed them. 

Nor is the chasm referred to, all. Thirty-seven 
years, covering a large portion of the period of the 
wandering in the wilderness, is left an entire blank, and 
we know almost nothing of what transpired, except the 
stations which from time to time the people occupied. 
A more attractive field for the growth of traditions 
could not be imagined; and not to enter it would 



EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN CUSTOMS. 217 

require more regard for historical truth, or a nicer 
discrimination between what is true and what is false, 
than later writers of that nation have shown in their 
works, or than some modern critics give them credit 
for. I cannot introduce illustrations to show the cor- 
rectness of these remarks. Those readers who are 
familiar with Jewish literature do not need them, and 
those who are not will find enough of them in the 
writings of Philo, Josephus, the Talmudists, and the 
rest. Admit that the principal parts of the last four 
books of the Pentateuch are the work of a writer, a 
scribe or scribes, contemporary with the events which 
are recorded in them, and these chasms are easily 
accounted for : assume any later period for their com- 
position, and they present insurmountable obstacles. 

SECTION VI. EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN CUSTOMS. 

I should be glad to go at length into a consideration 
of the minute and circumstantial references which we 
find in the Pentateuch to Egyptian customs. But I 
must confine myself to one, as an illustration of many, 
which impresses deeply upon the mind the opinion that 
an eye-witness must have recorded them. A resident 
in Egypt, and none other, could thus have colored the 
history with such delicate touches denoting his age and 
residence. In the fifth chapter of Exodus, the histo- 
rian gives an account of the additional labor which was 
put upon the Hebrews when they complained of their 
tasks, and asked leave to go into the country for three 
days to worship. " I will not give you straw," said 
Pharaoh. " Go ye, get you straw where ye can find it. 
... So the people were scattered abroad throughout all 



2l8 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of straw." 
The " straw " was that which had been broken upon 
the threshing-floor ; the " stubble " was what had been 
left standing in the field after reaping. If we turn now 
to Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient 
Egyptians (Vol. VI., page 86), we shall find an engrav- 
ing, taken from the ancient tombs, in which is rep- 
resented the gathering of wheat. The reapers are 
represented as cutting off only the heads of the grain, 
which they put in baskets, and leaving the " stubble " 
nearly as high as their shoulders behind them. This 
was the " stubble " which the Hebrews went out to 
gather, not the short stubbte which was left when the 
straw was cut near the ground. The overtasked He- 
brews had not the privilege of going to the threshing- 
floors and getting their "straw" : they were compelled 
to gather this high " stubble " in the field. In the 
same work, we find illustrations of brick-making, and 
bricks made with straw are found in the ruins of the 
ancient cities. 

Such minute knowledge of the manners of Egypt 
as the writer of the Pentateuch everywhere shows, and 
which it would cover pages to describe, confirms the 
opinion of its Mosaic origin. It is hardly conceivable 
that a later writer could have so fully informed himself 
of ancient customs as to have spoken of them so inci- 
dentally and yet so accurately and minutely. 

SECTION VII. EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN WORDS AND 
RITES. 

Another evidence of the early origin of the Penta- 
teuch is found in the use of Egyptian words, the adop- 



EVIDENCE FROM EGYPTIAN WORDS AND RITES. 219 

tion of Egyptian customs in their worship, both in 
utensils, altars, and robes, and also in the establishment 
of a priesthood and ritual. In the first sixteen chapters 
of Exodus, in which the bondage and escape of the 
people are described, no less than forty-eight words, 
exclusive of proper names, of Egyptian origin, are used, 
if such scholars as Gesenius and Bunsen can be relied 
upon, to say nothing of Seyffarth and Harkavy and 
Wilkinson. Egypt must have been the native land of 
the author. He is familiar with the manners and 
customs of the people. The whole account is evidence 
of such an author. The Urim and Thummim were 
Egyptian symbols of Truth and Justice, and were worn 
by the judge or priest in the breastplate which was 
over his priestly dress, as is shown in Wilkinson's 
Ancient Egyptians. The dress of the priests is not 
unlike that of the Egyptian priests — linen — as repre- 
sented in the same work. Their bathing and shaving 
the whole body were the same also. Even the ark of 
the covenant and the cherubim over it are copied from 
those used in Egypt, as may be seen in Wilkinson, Vol. 
V., page 276. As far as modern studies in Egyptian 
archaeology have gone, they confirm the accuracy of 
the description of the manners, laws, and language of 
that ancient people made by the writer of the Penta- 
teuch, and remand its composition to an early age and 
a native of the country. 

It has been objected to the antiquity and unity of 
the Pentateuch that such a complicated ritual and 
comprehensive body of laws could not have sprung into 
existence at once ; that generations, centuries, were 
necessary to evolve and mature them. It is forgotten 



220 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

by those who present this objection that the Egyptians 
were an old nation when Jacob's family went among 
them. They had the most attractive and elaborate 
ritual the world knew, — priests, temples, altars, sac- 
rifices, were almost everywhere. Their laws were the 
mature wisdom of ages. How easy was it, compara- 
tively speaking, for the law-giver of Israel to arrange, 
with the aid of such a ritual and such laws, the ritual 
and laws which we find in the Pentateuch, so similar to 
those of Egypt as to reveal their relationship, and so 
dissimilar as to prevent confounding them, and estab- 
lishing the independence of their author ! No careful 
student of the Hebrew code and ritual can fail to see 
the influence of an Egyptian education and residence 
upon the law-giver; so that the objection is itself 
transformed into an argument in favor of the antiquity 
of the Pentateuch and even of its Mosaic origin. He 
would naturally, trained as he had been, construct a 
full code and ritual for the recently delivered people. 
Nor is it any valid evidence, scarcely a presumption, 
that he did not do it, because they were but imperfectly 
administered, and in some respects apparently persist- 
ently violated for centuries. The code and the ritual 
sprang fully formed, mature, from the brain of Moses, 
like Minerva from the brain of Jupiter. The people 
were not able to understand or appreciate but a small 
part of them at first, and some portions of them were 
very probably found impracticable or so burdensome as 
to compel neglect. The code and the ritual were ideal, 
and could not in every particular be made real. The 
servile, emancipated race developed slowly up to the 
standard of their law whose requirements were ever 



NO EVIDENCE OF ENACTMENTS AFTER MOSES. 22 1 

before them. Their barbarism gradually wore off, and 
the knowledge of the one only God increased, and 
diminished their belief in other gods and their relish 
of idolatrous rites. The people grew up to the law, as 
Christians are growing up to Christianity. The gospel 
reads to-day as it did eighteen centuries ago, but how 
differently it is understood and practised ! The Mosaic 
code and ritual read the same through all the tumultu- 
ous period of the Judges and the revolution under 
Samuel, and during the monarchy ; but how differently 
were they regarded as the people sloughed off their 
barbarisms and improved in knowledge ! 

SECTION VIII. NO EVIDENCE OF ENACTMENTS AFTER 
THE TIME OF MOSES. 

One point further, and I will close. The Pentateuch 
concludes its history with the death of Moses, and 
professes to contain only those laws and rites which 
were prescribed by him. There is not a particle of 
reliable evide?ice, either external or internal, that a single 
law recorded in the Pentateuch was the work of the period 
subsequent to the time of Moses. I affirm this with the 
emphasis of assurance. The possession of the prom- 
ised land is always spoken of as future. New laws are 
given, new regulations are established on the banks of 
the Jordan, just before the people passed over to take 
possession of their country, such as their changed con- 
dition would require. No laws were made afterwards 
of which we have any record which were fundamental. 
All appeals are made to the law of Moses. 

So much for the antiquity of the Pentateuch. Who 
was its writer ? To answer this question is no purpose 



22 2 A STUDY OF THE fENTATEUCH. 

of this Study. Probably Moses was the principal 
author. I am aware that one objection which has 
weight in some minds is made to the Mosaic authorship 
of the Pentateuch : it is that he is spoken of in the third 
person in the historical portions. This is true ; and 
admitting that it has weight so far as the Mosaic author- 
ship is concerned, it has no weight whatever against my 
position ; for I am not proving that Moses was the 
writer of the Pentateuch, but that it was chiefly at least 
composed during his life. Against this position, the 
objection has no force whatever. But I am by no 
means willing to give it the weight which is claimed 
for it as conclusive against the Mosaic authorship under 
any circumstances. Xenophon is admitted on all hands 
to have written the Anabasis, and yet he never speaks 
of himself in the first person, though he is the principal 
character in the work. Who can dogmatically assert 
that Moses did not do the same thing? Besides, who 
can say that Moses did not adopt the usual practice of 
early times, as indicated both in history and in monu- 
ments, of employing a scribe, or scribes, who took note 
of passing events, as well as writing out the laws, who 
would naturally speak of Moses in the third person ? 

The whole book has the style and coloring, the con- 
tents and structure, of a writing of the Mosaic age. A 
few passages of later date can easily be accounted for 
as scholia — explanatory clauses — which have been in- 
troduced into the text by later copyists and readers. 
Some apparent or real contradictions can be easily dis- 
posed of by the same method, or as failures in the 
memory of the original writer. As well might one 
challenge the antiquity of the pyramid because he had 



RESULTS. 2.^3 

found a modern stone imbedded in one of its courses. 
Whether its condition could be accounted for or not, no 
antiquarian would think of pronouncing th.e monument 
of Cheops a work of the Ptolemies, standing in its 
hoary presence, with the voice of history sounding in 
his ears. As no astronomer would be accounted sane 
who should dispute that the sun is the source of light 
because a few dark spots are found on its surface, so no 
scholar who has surveyed all sides of this subject in the 
full light of modern discoveries can reasonably deny 
to the Mosaic age the production of the Pentateuch on 
account of alleged modern interpolations, imperfect 
genealogies, or contradictory dates and names which 
are found in it. 

SECTION IX. RESULTS. 

It results from the foregoing investigation : — 

I. That that portion of the Hebrew Scriptures called 
the Pentateuch, or the Five Books of Moses, can be 
traced by a common name — " The Book of the Law," 
"The Law given by Moses," "The Law," and other 
titles — from the time of Christ back through all the 
extant literature of the nation — prose and poetry, 
prophecy and proverb, history and psalm — till the time 
of David, and in all fragments of its literature of an 
earlier date; — 

II. That all the passages quoted from the book with 
these titles are found in the Pentateuch, and often its 
peculiar phraseology is preserved in the quotation, 
showing that the book is proved to be the same by its 
contents as well as by its title ; — 

III. That there is not the slightest hint in the his- 
torical books that these laws were enacted or revised 



224 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

in any later time than that of the Mosaic age ; all Jew- 
ish opinions to this effect being of a much later date, 
and based upon no historical evidence whatever; — 

IV. That the language of the Pentateuch, its pecu- 
liar phrases and " archaic words," shows that it must 
have been written some centuries before any other of 
the extant Hebrew writings, thus remitting its composi- 
tion to several generations before the time of David, as 
the language of the earliest Psalms, which are free from 
them, witnesses ; — 

V. That the contents of the Pentateuch, the journal- 
like arrangement of its events and laws, the constant 
assumption or implication that it was written in a camp, 
and many of its laws adapted only to camp life, the 
amendments of laws when on the borders of the prom- 
ised land to fit them to the changed condition and 
wants of the people, the inventories of gifts, and the 
record of specifications for wood-work, and curtains, 
and garments, and vessels for sacred use, the record of 
incidents which caused new laws to be enacted or old 
laws to be amended, the incidental and most obviously 
undesigned coincidences of events which are separated 
by many chapters and much time, confirm the previous 
historic and linguistic evidence of the early origin of 
the Pentateuch, and place its composition in the Mosaic 
age, and prove its direct or indirect Mosaic author- 
ship ; — 

VI. That the tumultuous anarchical times before the 
accession of David to the throne render it very proba- 
ble that sections of the law may have been misplaced, 
possibly lost ; that some of the historical sections may 
have been disarranged ; and that as time passed on 



RESULTS. 225 

aid names were modernized, obscure incidents ex- 
plained, and modern words and phrases sometimes 
substituted for the obsolete originals ; but none of 
these modern explanations and interpolations and sup- 
posed corrections in the least degree affecting the 
force of the argument derived from the above-men- 
tioned considerations of the age and at least the prin- 
cipal authorship of the work; — 

VII. That, notwithstanding the difficulties attending 
the reference of this work to so early an age and 
authorship, they vanish into comparative unimportance 
when compared with those which attend any other 
theory of its composition, especially that which refers 
it to the time of Ezra, or accounts for it by miscella- 
neous aggregations made during the ten centuries 
which transpired between Moses and Nehemiah ; — 

VIII. And, finally, that the only reasonable, and 
indeed the necessary, inference to be drawn from these 
facts — the historical references to this book by the 
same names to the earliest times ; the quotations made 
from it in later writings corresponding in minute par- 
ticulars to passages found in it; the archaisms with 
which it abounds ; the journal and camp-like arrange- 
ment and tone of its laws; the undesigned coinci- 
dences, indicating a writer on the spot ; the occasional 
explanation of antique words, names, and customs ; 
and the insuperable difficulties of fixing upon any 
other period for its composition — is that the Penta- 
teuch belongs to the Mosaic age, and fixes the author- 
ship of the book upon Moses and his contemporaries 
or immediate successors. 



CONCLUSION. 

DIFFICULTIES OF ANY THEORY OF UNBELIEF. 

I know the objections raised, the suspicion surmised, 
the prejudices appealed to ; but I also know that 
there are difficulties in unbelief as well as in belief. It 
is often supposed that there are no difficulties trailing 
after denial ; that some belief is not professed or im- 
plied when another is rejected. But he who denies the 
antiquity of the Pentateuch will be required by that 
denial to believe some things which will stagger reason 
and forbid faith. That very denial will compel him to 
adopt a positive opinion respecting the origin of the 
Pentateuch, which will draw after it difficulties more in- 
solvable and facts more incredible than the plagues of 
Egypt or the refluent waves of the Red Sea. For he 
must believe that an unbroken chain of writers from 
the days of Josephus to the time of David, including 
philosophers, historians, poets, prophets, have quoted 
different books under the same title, and containing 
the same laws, expressed in the same words ; that, be- 
tween the translation of the Septuagint, in the golden 
reign of Philadelphus, and the time of the prophet 
Malachi, about a century, this " Book of the Law of 
Moses " was mostly written and palmed off upon the 
Jewish scribes as of Mosaic origin, and gravely trans- 
lated by them into Greek at his command ; or that, be- 
tween the time of Malachi and the time of Ezra, about 



CONCLUSION. 227 

half a century more, some one or more of the returned 
exiles constructed a work which received the approba- 
tion of both prophets and rulers, people and priests, as 
the " Book of Moses " by whose laws their fathers had 
been guided ; or that Ezra himself codified and pub- 
lished the national laws under the title of the " Laws 
of Moses," or invented nearly all of them, and suc- 
ceeded in making the people receive them as such, 
either by gross fraud or because they were really of 
Mosaic origin, and yet his history makes no mention of 
such a wonderful work in narrating the invaluable ser- 
vices rendered to the people by this efficient ruler ; or 
that, a century before, Hilkiah and Shaphan imposed 
a code under the name of " The Book of the Law of 
the Lord by Moses" upon King Josiah and all the na- 
tion, and that Hezekiah had no such " Book of the 
Law of Moses " as the historian affirms, and that Ama- 
ziah did not quote from it when he said, as it " is writ- 
ten in the Book of the Law of Moses," and that Jehos- 
haphat did not send out the scribes to teach that book 
when they "took the Book of the Law of the Lord 
with them," and that Jehoash had some other book 
under the name of " the Law " given him when he was 
anointed king, and that David did not refer to it when 
he charged Solomon to have regard to what "is written 
in the Law of Moses." He must believe, moreover, 
that different books and different codifications of the 
laws of the people from time to time are thus referred 
to, when not one lisp in the whole history or poetry or 
prophecy of the nation can be found to that effect. 
He must believe that the nation was so stupid as to per- 
mit it, and its historians so careless as not to mention 



228 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

it either to the honor or the disgrace of any scribe or 
king. He must believe that in the time of Ezra or 
Josiah a writer succeeded in imitating the ancient style 
of the Mosaic age so perfectly that all the scribes and 
priests were deceived into the belief that it was the 
work of Moses, even when there was no evidence that 
he ever wrote such a book, or that such a book had 
ever existed in the nation. Nay, more : he must believe 
that all its complicated and burdensome laws were re- 
ceived at once and adopted as the code of the nation, 
because they believed them to be of Mosaic origin, and 
submitted to the severe discipline which these laws im- 
posed, without once questioning the authenticity of the 
book or the authority of the law-giver. He must be- 
lieve that the writer not only invented the accounts 
of the building of the tabernacle, and wearisomely 
repeated them, and also introduced the repetitious de- 
scriptions of the offerings and the consecration of the 
sacred things, but he must believe that he could luckily 
hit upon or skilfully invent those numerous undesigned 
coincidences which are scattered all through the book, so 
evidently unobserved by the writer himself. He must 
believe that the writer — guilty of one of the grossest 
impositions ever practised upon a people — was never 
suspected, much less accused, of fraud, but that his 
spurious work was received and adopted without a word 
of complaint, suspicion, or hesitation by a whole nation. 
He must believe that no "Book of the Law" was in 
existence during the reign of David, and that all the 
historians, prophets, and poets which have referred to 
it in an unbroken series from his time down to the time 
of Nehemiah and Malachi, Sirach and Philo, were mis- 



CONCLUSION. 229 

taken, or else he must believe that a gross corruption 
of the old copy was made, and ma ie in so skilful a 
manner that no one detected it then, or can now tell 
with any certainty the new portions which were added 
to the old book. The learned men of Jehoshaphat, 
the scholarly priest and scribe of Josiah, the noble 
Ezra, the skilful Nehemiah, never suspected the fraud, 
never discovered the cheat. Nor did the prophets Joel 
and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah, Haggai and Malachi, 
have a suspicion that "the Law," "the Laws of 
Moses," "the Law of the Lord," on which they based 
all their predictions, and to which they appealed in con- 
firmation of all their threatenings and promises, was a 
mere collection made from age to age of the laws of 
the nation, and attributed, by a pious fraud or illiterate 
mistake, to their great deliverer, Moses, to give them 
sanctity and power over the people. Surely, a louder 
curse would have leaped from the fiery lips of Isaiah 
upon the head of such a deceiver than he ever uttered 
against the hypocritical priests who "trampled the 
courts of the Lord." Yet such must be his belief who 
disbelieves. 

Adopting the canon of Hume, that of two miracles 
we should believe that which is the less marvellous 
and incredible, I accept the miracle, if it be one, of 
the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, rather than the 
theory which makes it either the growth of centuries 
or the work of a modern Jew of the time of Ezra. 
The difficulties attending the last theory are vastly 
greater than those which surround the first. As easily 
could I believe that the basaltic pillars which compose 
the Giant's Causeway were the work of the fabulous 



230 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

race whose name they bear, and not the production of 
the earth's central fires. I believe, then, that the Pen- 
tateuch is a work of the Mosaic age, and largely the 
work of Moses himself ; that it has come down to us 
with few, very few, dislocations, interpolations, and 
corruptions ; and that it will be handed down to com- 
ing ages as an admired monument of the wisdom, 
learning, and arts of that remote age, — as a monu- 
ment of an early revelation of the divine will, to re- 
store and elevate the race. I believe that the more 
thorough the investigations are which are directed to 
the examination of this book, the more profound and 
searching the scholarship which is devoted to the in- 
quiry of its age and authorship, the more successful 
the endeavors of the explorers of the ancient monu- 
ments on the Nile and the Tigris in exhuming sculpt- 
ured tablets and opening tombs whose walls are pict- 
ured history, the more brilliant the success of the 
Rawlinsons, the Layards, and the Hinckses, the Smiths 
and the Sayces, in deciphering the cuneiform inscrip- 
tions on the walls of the palaces of the successors of 
Ninus, and of the Wilkinsons and the Lepsiuses and 
the Mariettes in interpreting the painted symbols and 
hieroglyphic histories in the tombs of the Pharaohs 
contemporary with Abraham and Joseph and Moses, 
the more certainty will be given to the conclusions 
which I have reached, or, at least, to which I have 
pointed the way : that the Pentateuch is substan- 
tially of the Mosaic age, and largely, either 
directly or indirectly, of Mosaic authorship. 



NOTE A. 

Several eminent critics on the Continent and in England, and 
a few in this country, hold that the Pentateuch, with the excep- 
tion of a few brief passages, was not written till a period long 
subsequent to the time of Moses. The Book of Deuteronomy 
was composed, some say forged, in the time of King Josiah, by 
Hilkiah and his associates, and is the book which they pretended 
to have " found " while the Temple was undergoing repairs. 
They also maintain that the ritual law, or Priest-Code, as they 
call it, was not written till the return from the exile, and that the 
Book of Genesis was a compilation made by an author as late 
probably as the last years of the kingdom of Judah. Some 
critics also claim that the code of ritual laws, though not written 
out, was growing up during the reign of the later kings, and that 
its fragmentary character is proof of it. Indeed, they maintain 
that Exodus-Numbers is a mosaic of fragments of laws selected 
from larger codes, and that these fragments can be separated. 
They have attempted to make this separation. But no two of 
them agree as to the fragments used, which shows that the frag- 
mentary theory, as regards Exodus-Numbers, is by no means 
established, or capable of being established. To show the reader 
how the most eminent of these theoretical critics differ in their 
selection of these fragments, I will give their dissection of 
Exodus xii. I select six of them, — Stahelin, Knobel, Kayser, 
Noldeck, Dillman, and Wellhausen. 

Stahelin selects as Elohistic verses 1-28, 43-51. 

Knobel selects as Elohistic verses 1-23, 28, half of y], 40-51 ; 
that is, Knobel omits four verses which Stahelin calls Elohistic, 
and adds four in different places to Stahelin's number. 

Kayser selects as Elohistic verses 1-10, 14-20, 28, 40-51, omit- 
ting thirteen verses that Stahelin accepts, and eleven verses that 
Knobel accepts. No two of the three agree in their choice of 
fragments. Again : — 

Noldeck selects as Elohistic verses 1-23 (24-27 doubtful), 28, 

(231) 



232 A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

half of 37, 40-51. He differs from each of the other three in his 
selections, and attributes to some editor half of 27 and all of 38. 

Dillman selects as Elohistic verses 1-20, 28, half of yj, 40, 4:, 
43-50, differing more or less from all the others, and attributing 
to another Elohistic writer verses 21 (?), 31-33, the other half of 

37, 38, 42. Let the reader examine these divisions, and satisfy 
himself of their utter groundlessness. But I have not done. 

Wellhausen selects as Elohistic verses 1-20, 28, half of yj, 40, 
41,43-50. He and Dillman agree in these selections; but we 
shall see, as we proceed, that they differ in making other selec- 
tions. 

I will only delay to say that these eminent critics, whose dis- 
coveries we are called upon to accept, do not agree. 

But there are the Jehovistic selections of these critics yet to be 
examined. 

Stahelin selects as Jehovistic verses 29-36, leaving six verses of 
the chapter unaccounted for or attributed to the compiler. This 
is seen by adding together his Elohistic and Jehovistic passages. 

Knobel selects as Jehovistic verses 24-27, 29-36, half of 37, and 

38, 39, differing widely from Stahelin. 

Kayser selects as Jehovistic verses 1 1— 13, 21-27, 2 9~39j differing 
from both the former. 

Nbldeck selects as Jehovistic verses 29-36, 39, and attributing 
to the compiler half of 37, and 38, not accounting at all for 
eleven verses, and differing from all the other critics. 

Dillman selects as Jehovistic verses 2i(?)-27, 29, 30, 34-36, 39, 
and not agreeing with any of the above named. 

Wellhattsen selects as Jehovistic verses (21-27 doubtful), 29-39, 
42, not agreeing in this selection, as in the other, with Dillman, 
and with none of the others. 

Wellhausen, the most eminent among those who have 
attempted to show that the Pentateuch is made up of fragments, 
has a peculiar theory, which I will state. The reader can omit it 
if he is tired of this folly of learned men. 

The Jehovistic document, as we now have it, or fragments of 
it, in the Pentateuch, is composed of an original Jehovistic docu- 
ment, and a first, second, and third emendation of it, so that, in 



DISCORDANT CRITICS. 233 

fact, it had been changed by additions and subtractions three 
times, and consisted of four parts ; namely, the original and the 
three changes made by the three revisers. 

The Elohistic document underwent the same changes as the 
Jehovistic, and consisted of the original document and three re- 
visions. 

In this condition these documents would seem to be in a suffi- 
ciently mixed state to defy separation. But be patient, reader, if 
indeed you have ventured to read. Wellhausen is not satisfied 
with this mixture, but says that the three-times revised Jehovistic 
document is promiscuously added to the three-times revised 
Elohistic document ; and these eight, or by another reckoning 
twenty, intermixed documents he claims to have detected and 
separated even to clauses of only a dozen words ! 

No two of these critics whom we are called upon to confide in 
and follow agree in more than one instance ; and several passages 
in the chapter are not put into either the Jehovistic or Elohistic 
class, but are attributed to the compiler or editor of the Penta- 
teuch. When we demand that at least two of these critics shall 
agree in their separation into fragments of the books before we are 
accused of stupidity or bigotry for not blindly following them, our 
demand is reasonable, and we should stand by it. Wellhausen 
goes so far as to say "there were at least twenty-two authors, 
editors, and emendators engaged in the composition and comple- 
tion of the Pentateuch." Till some better agreement is reached 
than we find in these critics, and from whose opinion nine-tenths, 
if not nineteen-twentieths, of the Hebrew scholars in England and 
America decidedly assent, it will be as reasonable as it is prudent 
to accept the conclusion that the Pentateuch is a work of the 
Mosaic age, and much of it the work of the hand of Moses. 

* # * Readers desiring further information concerning the current critical 
schools of thought are referred to a series of papers by H. L. Hastings, included 
in the Anti-Infidel Library under the following titles: " The Higher Criti- 
cism" ; "Jesus of Naxareth as a Higher Critic" ; " The Pentateuch: Its 
Origin and Authority" ; "Specimen Bricks from the Babel of the Higher 
Critics" ; "More Specimen Bricks from the Babel of the Higher Critics," 
etc. To be obtained of the publisher of this volume. 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



Page 
INTRODUCTORY ON KUENEN'S "RELIGION OF ISRAEL." 

Style of the Work, and Test of the Truth of Later 

Writers, 7-10 

Illustrations of Perversions of History by Priests and 

Prophets, n-13 

Theory of Human Progress the Test of All History, . 14-16 
Point of Departure in the Inquiry of the Historic 

Truth, and Dr. Kuenen's Method of Argument, . 16-24 

Reform under Hezekiah and Josiah, 24-27 

Hilkiah's " Book of the Law," 27-32 

The Law the Work of Ezekiel and Ezra (Leviticus 

xviii., xxvi.), 33-36 

Objection that "No Mention is made of any such 
Work as the Pentateuch in any Work written 

before the Captivity " examined, 37—58 

Testimony of the Book of the Kings, 37 - 39 

" " " " Chronicles, .... 39-42 

" " " " Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 42-47 

" " " " Ezra, Nehemiah, . . 47-57 

Conclusion 57 

Appendix A : " The Bible for Learners." Some of 

its Theories noticed, — Sinai, Samson, Korah, . . 59-65 
Appendix B : Some of Dr. Kuenen's Theories exam- 

amined, — Priests, Levites, etc., . ... 66-69 

No Prophetic Writing till Eighth Century, . 70 

Not One Psalm from David, 70 

Different Documents in Exodus and Num- 
bers, 71 

( 2 34) 



ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



235 



PAGE 

A STUDY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

Introduction 75-81 

External Evidences, 82 

I. Christ to Malachi, 

1st Esdras, 83 

1st Maccabees, 84 

Ecclesiasticus, 84 

Septuagint Version, 84 

Samaritan Pentateuch, 84 

II. Malachi to Captivity. 

Malachi, 85 

Haggai, 85 

Zechariah, 85 

Nehemiah, 85-86 

Ezra, 86-87 

III. Captivity to David. 

(1) Historical Books, remarks on, . . . 87-90 
Books of the Kings, 90-100 

Josiah, 90-93 

Hezekiah, 93~94 

Amaziah, 94 

Jehoash, 94 

David, 95 

Solomon, 95-100 

Books of Chronicles, 100-104 

(2) Poetical Books, 104-132 

1. The Prophets. 

Daniel, 105 

Habbakuk, 105 

Zephaniah, 105 

Ezekiel, 105-107 

Jeremiah, 107-112 

Isaiah, 112-115 

Micah 115 

Hosea, 115-121 

Amos, 121-126 

JoeJ, ...,,♦.,., 126-127 



236 ANALYTICAL INDEX. 

PAGE 

2. Poems. 

Ecclesiastes, 127 

Solomon's Song 127 

Proverbs, 128 

Psalms, 128-132 

Value of this Evidence, 132-134 

IV. David to Moses, 134-156 

1st Samuel, 134-141 

Judges, 141-142 

Joshua, 142-146 

Observations on External Evidence 146-151 

Conclusion, 152-156 

Internal Evidence. 

General Observations as to what would be the 
Character of the Books, supposing them 

to have been written at the Time claimed, 157-159 

I. Antiquity of Style, 159-176 

II. Contents and Structure. Removal of 
Unexpected Difficulties in the Laws, 
and Comparison of Numb. Lev. and 

Deut, 177-198 

III. Undesigned Coincidences, 198-208 

IV. Minuteness of Details, 208-215 

V. Chasms in the History, 216-217 

VI. References to Egyptian Customs, . . . 217-218 

VII. Adoption of Egyptian Words and Rites, 218-221 

VIII. No Evidences of Later Enactments, . . 221-223 

IX. Results, 223-225 

X. Conclusion. — Difficulties of Unbelief, . 226-230 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 



THE 



"WONDERFUL LAW. 



By H. L. HASTINGS, 

Editor of " The Christian " Boston, Mass. 



Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy Law.' 
Psalm cxix. 18. 



SCRIPTURAL TRACT REPOSITORY : 

H. L. Hastings, l Marshall Bkos, Agents, 

Boston, U. S. A. : No. 47 Cornhill. London: No. 10 Paternoster Row. 
Copyright, 1888. Entered at Stationers' Hall. 

PRINTED IN AMERICA. 



fc\ 






THE WONDEKEUL LAW. 



BY H. L. HASTINGS. 



As the sojourner in Rome passes along the Via Sacra, 
among the various memorials of Rome's departed splen- 
dor he will observe a massive arch, which has been stand- 
ing for centuries, and which recalls the palmiest days of 
the Iron Empire; those days when the plundered spoils 
and treasures of conquered nations were gathered to 
adorn and enrich the Roman Capital. 

Upon the inside of this arch, some fifteen or twenty 
feet above the base, are to be seen carved in stone a num- 
ber of life-size human figures, bearing various articles; 
a table, a curious candlestick with seven branches, a cen- 
ser for incense, two trumpets, and other trophies of the 
victorious prowess of Roman arms. 

That arch is known as the Arch of Titus, and was 
erected to commemorate the triumphal celebration 
granted by the city of Rome in honor of the illus- 
trious exploits which had been performed by Titus and 
his father Vespasian. Each of them had won great hon- 
ors by their victories, and the Roman senate had decreed 
to each a public Triumph; but when Titus had re- 
turned from his journey to Egypt, and met his father 
Vespasian and his brother Domitian. it was determined 
to have but one Triumph for both father and son; and or 

m 



10 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

the day appointed for this pompous procession all Rome 
poured out to witness the magnificent spectacle. 

When the appointed morning dawned, Vespasian and 
Titus came out from the temple of Isis where they had 
lodged the previous night, crowned with laurel, and 
clothed in those purple robes which were proper to their 
family, and went as far as the Octavian Walk, where the 
senate and principal rulers waited for them; and where, 
being seated in ivory chairs on a tribunal or platform, 
they were hailed by the acclamations of the soldiers who 
were gathered to do them honor. After solemn devotions 
Vespasian briefly addressed the people. Then the soldiers 
were sent away to a feast, while Vespasian and Titus 
returned to the Gate of the Pomp, through which such 
processions marched, put on their triumphal garments, 
and offered sacrifices to the gods of ancient Rome. 

The triumphal procession then moved forward into the 
city. In it were borne vast quantities of silver, gold, and 
ivory, wrought in curious forms; purple hangings, precious 
stones, crowns of gold, gems of the utmost magnificence, 
imposing idols made of costly materials, and animals of 
every species; the whole being attended by multitudes of 
men robed in purple interwoven with gold. Captives from 
many lands marched in the procession, in which were 
also borne pageants, three or four stories high, covered 
with carpets of gold and ornamented with ivory, on which 
were portrayed happy countries laid waste, squadrons of 
enemies slain, fugitives fleeing from their invaders, cap- 
tives led away, cities overthrown and desolated, fortifica- 
tions taken, strongholds stormed by armies which poured 
within their walls, — with pictures of burning temples, 
demolished houses falling upon their owners, rivers flow- 
ing through lands wasted by fire and sword, and various 
other representations of war, defeat, and victory. 

Following these were a multitude of ships laden with 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 11 

the spoils gathered in abundance from conquered cities 
and nations. " But," says the historian, " for those that 
were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the 
greatest figure of all; that is, the golden table, of the 
weight of many talents, the candlestick also that was 
made of gold, though its construction was now changed, 
and the small branches were now produced out of it to 
a great length, having likeness to a trident in their posi- 
tion, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp 
at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, 
and represented the dignity of the number seven among 
the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, were carried 
the Laws of the Jews. After these spoils, passed by a 
great many men carrying the images of Victory, whose 
structure was entirely either of ivory or of gold; after 
which Vespasian marched in the first place, and Titus fol- 
lowed him; Domitian also rode along with them and made 
a glorious appearance, and rode on a horse that was wor- 
thy of admiration." * 

This great procession marched on until the rear of it 
reached the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, where they 
halted as was their custom, until word was brought that 
the general of the enemy was slain. This general was 
Simon, son of Gioras, who had been led in this show 
with the captives — seven hundred of whom, eminently 
tall and handsome, Titus had ordered carried to Rome to 
grace his triumph. A rope had been cast over Simon's 
head, and he had been dragged with abuse and insult into 
the forum, and there slain. When the news of his death 
was brought back to the procession the people shouted 
for joy, offered up sacrifices, and then dispersed to finish 
the day with mirth and festivity. 

" After these triumphs were over, and the affairs of 
the Romans were settled on a sure foundation, Vespasian 

*Josephus, Wars of the Jews, b. vii. chap. v. §§ 3-6. 



12 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

resolved to build a temple to Peace. . . He had this tem- 
ple adorned with pictures and statues. . . . He also laid up 
therein those golden vessels and instruments that were 
taken out of the Jewish temple as ensigns of his glory. 
But still he gave order that they should lay up their 
Law and the purple veils of the Holy Place, in the, 
royal palace and keep them there."* 

This was the Triumph, as described by an eye-witness, 
which commemorated the downfall of Jerusalem, the over- 
throw of the commonwealth of Israel, the captivity of 
the Jews, and their dispersion into all lands. And that 
Arch of Titus stands to-day, on the Via Sacra, with 
its representations of the golden candlestick, table, trum- 
pets, and censer, and is a perpetual memorial of the 
victory of imperial Rome, the downfall of the Jewish 
government, and the scattering of that nation among all 
the inhabitants of the earth. 

From that day to this, for more than eighteen centu- 
ries, the Jewish nation have been wanderers on the face of 
the earth, strangers and pilgrims, exiles from their own 
land, without a government, without a city, without a 
temple, without a home, struggling, suffering and endur- 
ing; and to-day is still fulfilled in them that prophecy of 
Balaam their ancient enemy, " Lo, the people shall dwell 
alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." 

But, however the Jews may since have been despised 
and hated, the choicest trophies which a Roman con- 
queror could then gather out of all the lands to grace his 
imperial triumph were the vessels taken from the temple 
at Jerusalem; and most precious among those spoils, 
more valuable than the golden candlestick, table, cen- 
ser, or trumpets, was the Law that was given by 
Moses, which contained the secret of all the prosperity 
the Jewish nation ever enjoyed, and the violation of 

* Josephus, Wars of the Jeivs, b. vii. chap. v. §§ 6, 7. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 13 

which had brought upon that people the judgments which 
had crushed their power, and bound them as captives be- 
neath the Roman yoke. 

The graphic pen of a skeptical historian has traced 
through successive centuries the "Decline and Fall of 
the Roman Empire;" and the proudest monuments of 
Rome's imperial greatness to-day are vast ruins, desolate 
palaces and broken sculptures, shattered and marred by 
the vengeance of barbarians, and the destructive acci- 
dents of passing ages. The grandeur of Rome has de- 
parted. The palaces of the Caesars lie desolate. The 
laws which Rome imposed upon the world are buried 
in the dust of ages, and none are so poor as to yield 
them allegiance. The dynasty of the Caesars has sunk 
into oblivion, and the names of the proudest rulers of 
earth are black with merited infamy. The world-wide 
power of the Iron Kingdom has been shattered and di- 
vided; but the Jewish nation whose downfall was that 
day celebrated, whose leader was that day slain, and 
whose children, sold as slaves, were represented by the 
ranks of dejected captives which swelled the pomp of 
their conquerors' triumph, still lives and thrives and mul- 
tiplies among the nations on the earth. The ceaseless 
attrition of ages has failed to crush them. The burdens 
of oppression, " the slings and arrows of outrageous fort- 
une," the disgrace, exile, poverty, and -scorn of centuries, 
have in vain conspired to effect their disintegration and 
destruction. Rome has fallen, but the Jewish nation still 
stands. The empire of the Caesars has perished, but the 
Jewish people remain. The nations that conquered them, 
sold them, scattered them and oppressed them, have been 
shattered into fragments, and all the gods they wor- 
shipped are forgotten, or only remembered with con- 
tempt, while the conquered people maintain their na- 
tionality and remember their fathers' God, and have the 



14 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

comfort of knowing that His name is still adored in all 
lands, while the thirty thousand idols of the Roman Pan- 
theon are cast to the bats and the moles, never to be 
worshiped again. 

But though Rome has been sacked, though her temples 
have been desolated, her altars destroyed, and her laws 
abolished, yet the Law contained in that Parchment Roll 
which the Romans brought from the Jewish temple as 
their proudest trophy in the triumph of Titus, and laid 
ap at last within the imperial palace of the Roman rulers, 
as the choicest of all the spoils which Roman prowess 
Aad won — that Law has been honored and preserved, and 
rules to-day an empire wider than the wildest dreams of 
Roman domination, and is written in the hearts and minds 
of men and women scattered in every land and clime. 

Translated into hundreds of languages, printed in 
thousands of editions, and scattered by hundreds of mill- 
ions of copies, that law has gone into all the earth, and 
its words unto the ends of the world. And that law to- 
day, though spurned and despised by the scoffing, the 
godless and the unbelieving, unlocks the mystery of Jew- 
ish preservation and of Israel's acknowledged greatness, 
and stands with them as a witness to the faithfulness of 
God, and to the truth of the revelation he has given. 
The Roman conquerors are gone; the deities which Titus 
worshiped in that day of pomp are buried out of sight; 
but the testimony of Israel, "The Lord our God is one 
Lord," has gone throughout all lands, and is still sound- 
ing forth, lighting up the darkness of heathenism as with 
a pillar of fire, and leading the van of human progress as 
a pillar of cloud by day. Over the wreck and ruin of 
departed empires we read, "All flesh is grass, and the 
goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field;" but in 
the fulfillment of sacred prophecy, and in the perma- 
nence of the law given by Moses ? we may read that 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 15 

though "the grass withereth, and the flower fadeth," yet 
"the word of our God shall stand forever." 

WHENCE CAME THAT LAW ? 

Upon the origin of that law general history sheds lit- 
tle light. The sources of other laws are well known. 
The code of Napoleon, the pandects of Justinian, the de- 
crees of the Roman emperors, the products of Grecian 
legislation, have come down to us, and we can mark the 
date and time when they were enacted or decreed. We 
can trace the history of the British Magna Charta, or 
the American Declaration of Independence, the laws of 
the British Parliament, or the American Congress; but 
Israel has no record or tradition of any law-making body. 
No parliament or legislature ever convened to enact 
or establish the statutes which governed the children 
of Israel. The acts of legislative bodies, and the de- 
crees of monarchs, are numbered and dated, and can be 
authenticated; but this law stands alone. There is no rec- 
ord of its gradual growth. Various ancient heathen 
writers declare its Mosaic origin, some asserting that 
Moses flourished before the Trojan war (b.c 1184). Jew- 
ish tradition, in accordance with their written records, 
declares that it was received from the Almighty through 
Moses on Mount Sinai. One thing is certain, if it was 
not thus received there is no record of its origin or recep- 
tion, and it stands to-day an unexplained enigma — a law 
without a lawgiver. 

LAW AND HARD-TACK. 

It is asserted by some that the law of Moses was a 
forgery and a cheat, that it was not given by God, nor 
even by Moses, but that it was imposed upon the people 
at a far later date than the time when it is supposed to 
have been originated. 

But it is not easy to impose spurious laws upon any 



16 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

nation. Men are jealous of their liberties and their rights. 
Every Jew was an owner of landed property, and his 
only title to that property was found in the writings of 
Moses and Joshua, and in the genealogy of his family, 
which was carefully preserved. Every law, to be accepted 
as authoritative, must bear the name of the lawgiver and 
the date of its enactment; otherwise it would not gain 
credence or authority. It would not be easy to forge a 
law and foist it upon any people. Does the history of 
the world afford an instance of such a proceeding ? 

Suppose that for experiments sake, some skeptic should 
go among his friends and neighbors and tell them that 
there was a law that for seven days in each year every 
man, woman, and child in this nation should eat "hard- 
tack," or a peculiar kind of thin hard bread, or biscuit; 
and that during one week in April every person must use 
only this kind of bread, whether they had good teeth or 
poor teeth, or no teeth at all; and that no other sort of 
bread should be allowed in their houses, under pain of 
death. Imagine an infidel publishing such a law through- 
out the community, and saying to every man, woman, 
and child, " On the fifteenth day of April you will all 
commence to eat hard-tack; and for seven days no man 
or woman shall bake, eat, or possess any other kind of 
bread under the severest penalties." What success would 
an infidel have in imposing such a law upon his neighbors? 
They would look upon him at first with silent contempt, 
or perhaps query if he was not an escaped lunatic. If 
he persisted in proclaiming such a law, they would in- 
quire as to its origin; they would say, " We never heard 
of such a law;" they would deny his authority, and they 
would flatly refuse to obey it. 

"Eat hard-tack!" they would say; "we do not like 
hard-tack. We never have eaten it, and we do not pro- 
pose to begin. You say there is a law that we should eat 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. \1 

this kind of bread; where is this law? who made such a 
law? and why did no one ever hear of it before?" 

What would be the result of the infidel's experiment ? 
Why, a man would go home and say to his wife, — 

"I want you to make some bread." 

"What kind of bread?" 

" Any kind of bread. Make some raised bread, soft 
bread, saleratus bread, yeast bread, potato bread, wheat 
bread, rye bread, brown bread, — any kind of bread and 
every kind of bread except hard- tack; that we will not 
have, anyhow. There is an infidel * crank' around here 
saying that there is a law that for one week no bread 
shall be baked or eaten in the country except hard-tack, 
under pain of death; and we propose to let the fool see 
that he cannot impose his laws upon us." 

And so they would eat their bread, and defy the infidel 
and his law, and show this new teacher that they were 
not to be deceived or frightened by such a man as he. 

And yet to-day there is a people, scattered from one 
end of the world to the other, who for seven days in each 
year eat this kind of bread, and have no other bread in 
their houses. We find these people in Asia, in Africa, in 
Europe, in America, and in every quarter of the globe; 
and wherever they are, under the rule of czar or kaiser, 
emperor or king, in England or in Egypt, in China or in 
India, in lands of bondage and outrage, or in homes of 
freedom and prosperity, — wherever you find the Jews, 
there, in the spring of the year, for a week's time, they 
not only eat this peculiar kind of bread, but they put 
every other kind out of their houses. As the time ap- 
proaches, hundreds and hundreds of barrels of flour pass 
through the great bakeries,* and are turned out in cakes 

♦Certain bakeries in this city have been busily engaged recently in preparing un- 
leavened bread for the Passover feast of the Jews. It is expected that one hundred 
thoumncf, pounds will be prepared. — Philadelphia Christian Instructor, April, 1885. 



18 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

about as large as a dinner-plate, and about as thick— and 
nearly as hard. And this bread is eaten by Jews wher- 
ever they are, throughout the entire world. And it is 
not only eaten by Jews; but among the ruins of Samaria, 
in Palestine, there is a little remnant of people which 
have been at enmity with the Jews for nearly twenty- 
five hundred years, but who yet eat unleavened bread as 
the Jews do, and at the same time of the year. 

Now why does this scattered nation uniformly observe 
such a custom as this ? They say they do it in obedience 
to their law. But who gave them such a law? And 
what is the meaning of such an observance ? Who had 
authority to enact such a law ? And what reason can be 
assigned for such a strange requirement ? 

When those Jewish families gather around their tables 
where they eat of that unleavened bread with bitter 
herbs, it is customary for a little child, the youngest in 
the family, to come to the father and inquire "What is 
the meaning of this feast?" And the law of Moses says: 

" When your children shall say to you, What mean ye 
by this service? then ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the 
Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the chil- 
dren of Israel, in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians 
and delivered our houses." Exodus xii. 26,^27. 

In accordance with this law, the father gives an account 
of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, of the oppressions 
which they endured, and of the great deliverance which 
God wrought in bringing them out with a mighty hand 
and outstretched arm, with signs and wonders, into their 
own land. And he tells them that the last meal the 
Israelites ate in the land of Egypt was a roasted lamb with 
unleavened bread, prepared and eaten in haste, — the blood 
of the lamb having been sprinkled on the posts of their 
doors to protect them from the power of the destroying 
angel, who slew the firstborn of Egypt and passed over 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 19 

the houses whose doors were thus sprinkled with blood; 
and that, in memory of this passing over, they were then 
commanded to keep the passover feast each year, and for 
seven days to eat only unleavened bread. 

Now why do these Israelites tell this story ? When 
did they begin to tell it ? Supposing it to be a lie, who 
started it ? If it is a fraud, or forgery, how was a whole 
nation imposed upon by such a fraud and such a forgery? 
Surely, a skeptic of to-day must be exceedingly wise if 
he can prove that to be false which this people for 
more than thirty-three hundred years have accepted and 
commemorated as true. If this story be a falsehood, 
how comes it to be told in every Jewish home, from one 
end of the world to the other? Different families of 
this nation have had no communication with each other 
for centuries and ages, but yet they all agree in declaring 
that this passover has been handed down from the time 
of Moses to the present day; and the Samaritans, with 
whom the Jews have had no dealings for thousands of 
years, tell the same story, and read it out of the same 
books. 

Skeptics may deny the fact of the Egyptian bondage, 
of Israel's deliverance, and the passage of the Red Sea; 
but they cannot deny the existence of the hard-tack, for 
it is here before their eyes. If the Jews were not deliv- 
ered from Egypt, why do they eat this bread one week 
in every year ? The unleavened bread is a fact, and for 
one week in every year every true Jew, old and young, 
throughout the world, eats no bread but that. He does 
it in obedience to the law given by Moses, commemorat- 
ing the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt. If 
we deny that the law was given, how can we account for 
its observance ? And if we deny the deliverance of Is- 
rael from Egypt, how will the infidel explain the hard-tack? 

The hard-tack is a present, palpable fact, and we can 



20 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

no more account for its existence without admitting the 
truth of the books of Moses, than Americans could ac- 
count for the celebration of the fourth day of July with 
drums, trumpets, and fire-works, while denying the his- 
tory of the American Revolution. The skeptic might 
find discrepancies in American histories, and statements 
that seemed to him improbable; but if he proceeded to 
deny the Declaration of Independence, and the leading- 
facts in the history of the American Revolution, every 
cannon, and drum, and band of music, and sky-rocket, 
and fire-cracker, and toy pistol, used to celebrate the day, 
would give the lie to his denials, and prove beyond all 
possibility of question, that there was a Declaration of 
Independence in 1776, and a Revolutionary War. It 
would have been impossible for any man to have brought 
about the celebration of the Fourth of July, with the 
usages and customs attending it, unless there had been 
something to celebrate, and something that was worth 
celebrating. 

When the descendants of the " Pilgrim Fathers " hold 
their annual feast on " Forefathers' Day," in Plymouth, 
it is said that one of the courses served consists of five 
grains of corn, laid on the plate of each guest, a memo- 
rial of that time when, in their early days of poverty 
and distress, all the corn in the colony was divided, and 
there were only five kernels to each person. No law re- 
quires the remembrance or celebration of this circum- 
stance. The observance does not date from the time of 
the Pilgrims; it is not a religious ordinance, nor has it 
ever been widely observed; nevertheless, it would be 
hard to persuade any man who had ever been present on 
such an occasion that there was not some foundation for 
this custom. But the feast of the passover, instituted 
immediately in connection with the events which it com- 
memorated, and continued without interruption through 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 2l 

all generations, being observed by the entire Jewish na- 
tion, though scattered abroad in every land, is an abso- 
lute demonstration of the truth of the Mosaic history; 
since it would have been impossible to invent and impose 
such laws and usages upon the Jewish nation unless the 
facts upon which they were based were realities, and the 
statements which warranted them were true. 

So long as the Jews keep the passover, so long it will 
be impossible for candid persons to deny the story of 
Israel's deliverance from Egyptian bondage, or to dis- 
prove the supernatural origin of the Jewish Law. And 
so long as the Arch of Titus stands, with the vessels of 
the Jewish tabernacle represented upon it; so long as 
every Jew in Rome shuns that arch, and avoids passing 
under the memorial of his nation's overthrow ; so long as 
the Jewish people, wherever they dwell, keep the pass- 
over and observe the Mosaic ordinances, — so long we shall 
find ourselves linked by existing facts and historical mon- 
uments to that law given by Moses more than three thou- 
sand years ago, and which, preserved through all the 
changes of passing ages, is still working its way among 
the nations of the earth, and influencing humanity as no 
other law has ever done. 

IS THIS LAW GOOD OR EVIL? 

There are few things more remarkable than the op- 
posing conclusions at which different persons will arrive 
concerning the same thing. For example, there are those 
who look upon the Law of Moses as the embodiment 
of sound principles, and abundant political wisdom and 
sagacity; while others look upon it as a tissue of absurd- 
ities and abominations, hardly paralleled in the history 
of human jurisprudence and imposture. Of course when 
estimates differ so widely, some one must be mistaken; 
and there are doubtless serious misapprehensions con- 
cerning this matter, in one quarter or another. 



22 THE WOXDEREUL LAW. 

The Psalmist prayed, " Open thou mine eyes, that I 
may behold wondrous things out of thy law." No man 
can see much until his eyes are open; and what men see 
depends quite as much upon their powers of vision as it 
does upon the things to be seen. Because a blind man 
sees nothing, it by no means follows that there is nothing 
to be seen. A near-sighted man is a poor judge of a land- 
scape. Men see what they are accustomed to see, what 
their eyes are trained to perceive. 

Passing through the same street in a city, different 
persons will see different things. One man sees books 
and literature, he is a student; another man sees build- 
ings and architecture, he is an architect; another man 
sees displays of merchandise, he is a merchant; another 
sees machinery, he is a mechanic ; another man sees 
styles and fashions, he is a tailor or a dandy; another 
man sees the dramshops, and he is — drunk before night. 
Man sees what he is trained to see, what he is competent 
to appreciate, what he is interested in seeing. 

Standing in a Western wilderness, the wild Indian sees 
tracks of deer and buffalo, he is a hunter ; another man 
sees broad acres of fertile land, and makes haste to se- 
cure them, he is a farmer ; another man, a civil engineer, 
sees water privileges, marks the site of a city, hears the 
whirr of a million of spindles, and says, " Here will be a 
second Lowell or Manchester ;" another man goes down 
to the water-side, and grasping a handful of sand and hold- 
ing it up to the sunlight, he sees gold, and straightway 
thousands of adventurers go rushing to and fro to find 
the precious metal. 

Why did not the first man see gold ? Because he was 
not trained to see gold. He would not know gold if he 
did see it. Each man has seen the things which he was 
trained to see. The hunter saw game ; the farmer saw 
land ; the civil engineer saw the city ; the gold-digger 



the Wonderful law. 23 

saw the gold. Each inan saw what he was accustomed 
to see, and what he was looking for. 

An angel, flying over the earth, sees men, and women, 
and children, and churches ; he hears the voice of prayer 
and the songs of praise ; he sees the heavens which de- 
clare God's glory, and the firmament which showeth his 
handiwork. Over that same radiant landscape flies a 
buzzard, and the only thing he sees is a dead mule or a 
poor old rack-o'-bones of a horse, which staggers and falls, 
and furnishes a feast for the buzzard and his friends. 
Each sees the things he is interested in; the eye catches 
what it has been trained to look for and recognize. 

Now it is asserted in various quarters that the Mosaic 
law and the Old Testament writings connected there- 
with are absurd, obscene, and oppressive; and that the 
acts done under that law, and professedly by divine di- 
rection, were, in themselves considered, unjust, unwise, 
and unworthy of the character of a great and good 
Creator and Governor. Others, on the other hand, of 
equal intelligence and acquaintance with the facts in the 
case, make directly opposing assertions. In such cir- 
cumstances, to what conclusion shall we arrive? The 
difference cannot be in the law, — it must be in the men 
who read it. Both look at the same landscape; some see 
one class of objects, and others see things entirely 
different. Which class sees things as they are ? Or are 
they both mistaken in their views of things ? 

HAVE WE ANY RULE OF JUDGMENT? 

It is necessary in every argument to reach some point 
of agreement, as a basis of our reasonings. We must 
agree in something before we can argue about anything. 
Some primary premises must be laid down as a basis of 
all controversy. Can we agree on anything ? 

If there is no God, if no law has been given by him, 
if Moses was a myth, and man a monkey, then of course 



24 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

all moral considerations must be set aside; and then 
what rule have we for judging or condemning the acts 
recorded in connection with the Mosaic law ? If God 
has never said, " Thou shalt not steal," what is there 
wrong in stealing ? Monkeys have been in the habit of 
stealing, from time immemorial, and no one claims that it 
is sinful for a monkey to steal. At what point and by 
what means does man, the descendant and heir of the 
monkey, forfeit his hereditary right to help himself to 
everything which he sees, at pleasure ? It is not wrong 
for a monkey to steal. That is his privilege, his right. 
Why did not his descendants inherit this, with other an- 
cestral rights ? And if so, how absurd it is to charge 
men with wrong for doing what had been the natural 
right of all men from immemorial ages, a right which 
was handed down to them from their brutal ancestors, 
and which they had done nothing to forfeit. If the Ten 
Commandments are a fable, and the Sermon on the Mount 
a fantasy, the law a humbug, and the gospel a dream, 
why should not men steal, lie, and deceive at pleasure ? 

It is charged that the Jews under the law of Moses 
were guilty of great immoralities. But why should they 
be blamed for that ? If the laws enforcing purity and for- 
bidding vice were fabulous and deceptive from beginning 
to end; if the teachings of Jesus Christ are entirely void 
of all authority ; why should not men disregard all such 
imaginary restrictions, and conduct their affairs after 
their own sweet wills ? Monkeys, apes and baboons have 
exhibited no particular squeamishness concerning matters 
of this kind. They have no rule, no law, but that which 
springs from their own desires and inclinations. They 
are a law unto themselves. They have needed neither 
priests nor magistrates to sanction their unions. Why 
should the Israelites be blamed for any irregularity in 
their social relations, if they were only following in the 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 25 

steps of the monkeys from whom infidels say they were 
descended, and whose examples some who profess to be 
their progeny seem still quite willing to follow ? 

ARE MEN RESPONSIBLE BEINGS ? 

It is impossible and unreasonable to condemn and judge 
irresponsible beings by commandments and regulations 
addressed to beings Avho are morally responsible. We 
cannot take both positions. If we deny moral responsi- 
bility we must stop abusing Moses and the Israelites for 
doing wrong. If we have no sort of guide by which we 
can determine what is right and what is wrong, then no 
one is to be blamed, whatever they may do, and conse- 
quently Moses and the Israelites were perfectly justifiable 
in all their acts; for " whatever is is right." Suppose the 
Israelites did commit the grossest outrages and were 
guilty of the vilest crimes; suppose they slaughtered and 
butchered without mercy men and women and children; 
suppose their law outraged all principles of justice and 
truth and righteousness and decency; what of it ? If 
there is no power but Force; if there is no Supreme Ruler 
and superior law; if all progress is attainable only by the 
survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence, one 
thing is certain, the Jewish nation has survived, while the 
others have gone to the wall. Hence they must be con- 
sidered as tkejittest, and their acts must be interpreted in 
accordance with that principle. Why, then, in the name 
of common sense, should men go brawling about the 
country, abusing Moses and the Israelites for committing 
crimes and perpetrating cruelties, if they have no proof 
that the acts committed were crimes and cruelties, and 
if they were only carrying out their natural passions and 
appetites, and doing what they had a perfect right to do, 
according to the laws of nature under which they were 
created and in accordance with which they lived ? Sup- 
pose they were cruel, brutal, and unreasonable, were they 



26 THE WONDEKFUL LAW. 

any more so than are the " laws of nature " which govern 
all things ? Suppose they destroyed without discrimina- 
tion, mercy or justice ? Is not that just the way the god 
of nature is doing every day ? Is there any reason in a 
whirlwind ? any mercy in an earthquake? any compas- 
sion in a cyclone ? any pity in a famine or a pestilence ? 
If we charge the God of the Bible with cruelty, brutality, 
and unreasonableness, does the god of nature behave him- 
self any better? or are the laws of nature more merciful, 
gracious, compassionate, or righteous ? Upon what prin- 
ciple can skeptics abuse Moses for doing just those things 
which nature herself has been doing from unknown ages 
down to the present time? Surely, that is a lame kind of 
logic which abuses Moses and the Jews for acts which are 
forbidden by no law, but which are in accordance with all 
men's ancient rights and usages, from their monkey ances- 
tors down; and which are in strict harmony with what is 
done by nature and the god of nature every day we live. 

If the law of Moses is a fable, a forgery, and a fraud, 
then the principles contained in that law cannot be used by 
infidels to impeach or accuse the men to whom that law 
was given. If there are no principles of truth and right- 
eousness and justice; if we have nothing to guide us but 
the instincts derived from brutal ancestors ; then on what 
principle can we question or condemn any act committed 
by any person, under any circumstances ? There is no law ? 
and there can be no transgression. But if we admit the 
existence of a God, and if he has implanted a law in the 
human heart, or inscribed it on tables of stone, then we 
have a basis upon which we may argue. If we do not 
admit these primary facts, we are left to flounder in a quag- 
mire without a bottom or shore. 

If there is no God but nature; if man has neither crea- 
tor nor governor; if the rights of property, now protected 
by law and guarded by the sanction of solemn oaths, are 



THE WONDEKFUL LAW. 27 

based upon absurd and groundless traditions; then what 
is to hinder any man falling back upon his original rights, 
derived from his remote ancestors, and stealing, right and 
left, whatever he can lay his hands on ? And should he 
succeed in plundering a government, and thus robbing 
fifty or sixty millions of people of their rights, through 
crooked contracts and villainous frauds, he would be per- 
fectly justifiable in doing it, and in invoking the aid of some 
brilliant lawyer who agreed with him that Moses was 
mistaken when he declared that God had said, "Thou 
shalt not steal," and who would gladly aid him to escape 
punishment, and divide with him the profits of the job. 

It is true these principles do not work on a large scale. 
So long as the majority of the people are honest, a few 
thieves can exhibit their enterprise and carry out their 
principles with apparent advantage to themselves. If, 
however, the practice of stealing should come to be uni- 
versal, the novelty of the thing would pass away, and we 
should find ourselves back in the realms of barbarism, 
and brutality. And no principle which if universally ac- 
cepted and fully carried out would degrade humanity, 
shipwreck civilization, and disorganize society, is worthy 
of acceptation by men who have anything to lose or any- 
thing to hope for. 

All theories which deny divine authority and moral 
responsibility tend directly to barbarism; nor can any 
true civilization be found outside the influence of the law 
of Moses and the gospel of Christ. The infidel world 
may be defied to find a place on this planet ten miles 
square, where a decent man can live in decency, comfort, 
and security, supporting and educating his children un- 
spoiled and unpolluted, enjoying the comforts of family 
life, and the advantages of respectable society — a place 
where age is reverenced, infancy protected, manhood re- 
spected, womanhood honored, and human life held in 



28 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

due regard — where the revelation of the God of Abra- 
ham has not gone before and cleared the way, and laid 
the foundations of society, and made civilization, de- 
cency, and security possible. And as no decent society 
can be found where the law of God is unknown, so no 
such society can be perpetuated where God's law is dis- 
carded and disregarded. Persons who, under the influ- 
ence of divine revelation, have been trained to the prac- 
tice of virtue and piety in early life, may not always cast 
off its restraints under the influence of skepticism in later 
years. But let the influence of such training die out, 
and the practice of infidelity will soon prove the ruin of 
society.* 

If we then turn away from theories so revolting, im- 
practicable and dangerous, if we admit that there is 

A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG, 

between vice and virtue, sin and holiness, good and evil, 
we then naturally inquire, What is the cause of this differ- 
ence ? Does it have its orisrin in " the nature of things ?" 
Then who is responsible for "the nature of things?" 
And who gave things such a nature, based upon moral 
principles, and in harmony with right, and opposed to 
wrong? 

If it be said that this distinction between right and 
wrong is innate in the human constitution, then the ques- 

* Thoughtful skeptics may well ponder the words of James Russell Lowell, who, 
at a festival in honor of the poet Browning, said, in reply to the severe language of 
a speaker against certain forms of religious faith: 

" I have always been a liberal thinker, and have allowed others who differed with 
me to think as they liked— but at the same time I fear that when we indulge our- 
selves in the amusement of going without a religion, we are not, perhaps, aware 
how much we are sustained at present by an enormous mass all about us, of relig- 
ious feeling and religious conviction, so that whatever it may be safe for us to think, 
for us who have had great advantages, and have been brought up in such a way 
that a certain moral direction has been given to our character, I do not know what 
would become of the less favored classes of mankind if they undertook to play the 
same game." 



THE WONDERFUL LA¥o 29 

tion arises, "Who made the human constitution, and who 
endowed it with the consciousness of right and wrong, 
and the ability to discern between the two ? Certainly 
man must derive that moral nature which approves of 
right and disapproves of wrong, from some higher Being, 
who also distinguishes between right and wrong, and 
who hates the wrong and approves the right. 

An unconscious machine cannot produce a conscious 
being: a dead thing cannot give birth to a living person; 
and a being who had no moral sense, or care concerning 
right and wrong, would not know how to originate a be- 
ing possessed of a conscience which, properly enlightened, 
approves the right and condemns the wrong. 

If man possesses moral sense, and has innate ideas 
of righteousness, they must be the gift of a righteous 
Creator, who is not only the source of life and being, but 
the fountain of ' truth and righteousness, the Father of 
lights, from whom man receives not only existence, but 
intelligence, conscience, and every good and perfect gift. 

If, then, it be admitted that there is a God, and that 
man is a responsible creature, possessed of moral sense, 
and capable of perceiving the difference between good 
and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, vice and 
virtue, we are then prepared to inquire whether the things 
narrated in the books of Moses are in accordance with 
the principles of natural righteousness and virtue, or 
whether they are impious, outrageous, and worthy of all 
condemnation. Hence we inquire, 

WAS THE LAW OF MOSES A BAD LAW? 

It is useless to undertake to settle this question by mere 
general assertions. It must be discussed in detail. Wild, 
vague charges prove nothing. We have simply to take 
up, one by one, the accusations preferred, and compare 
them with the facts in the case. This may be a tedious 



30 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

method, but it is the only method that can be satisfactory. 
It is easy to condense into a sentence a string of epithets, 
or a series of accusations, and snap them off from the end 
of a nimble tongue, giving no authority for the assertions 
and no opportunity to inquire into tne facts — thus be- 
guiling the simple and fooling the gullible; but such ora- 
torical displays serve no good purpose. They may con- 
fuse some who wish to be confused, and convince some 
who are willing to be convinced; they may raise that 
"laughter in the mouth of fools," which is "like the 
crackling of thorns under a pot;" they may serve to fill 
the pockets of a glib-tongued blasphemer, but they do not 
work conviction in honest minds, nor satisfy the candid 
thinker who is honestly inquiring, " What is truth ?" 

Let us then calmly consider a few of the objections 
which are continually being made against the authority 
of the books of Moses, and so against the authority of 
the entire Scriptures. And first let us inquire, 

IS THE BIBLE A VILE BOOK? 

First, we are told that the Bible is a bad book, obscene, 
indelicate, and unfit to be read. Before this grave charge 
can be established we must consider that the Bible was 
written in a different age and country from our own. 
There are countries to-day where persons can freely ap- 
pear in public with such costume, or such lack of costume, 
as would in this country at once subject them to impris- 
onment for indecent exposure. Customs differ in differ- 
ent countries; and what is improper in one country may 
give no offense in another. So there may be a simplicity, 
or even a barbarism, of language, which, though indeli- 
cate to our ears, may have been entirely consistent with 
purity and propriety at the time and in the countries 
where it was written; as there may also be delicacy of 
speech joined with prurient thought and corrupt behavior. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 31 

Again, the words which appear to us indelicate in the 
Bible are not the words written by Moses or the prophets, 
but they are English words used by the translators; and 
they are words which were used in respectable society 
when the Bible was translated in 1611, that is, in the 
time of Shakespeare. And for every expression in the 
Bible which seems objectionable, we could probably find 
a dozen in the writings of Shakespeare which would not 
pass current in modern society; though it does not appear 
that much fault was found with them in those days. 

In the year 1400 died Geoffrey Chaucer, a London gen- 
tleman, a favorite of royalty, a high government official, 
and "the father of English poetry;" placed by Southey 
"in the first rank, with Spenser, Shakespeare and 3111- 
ton," and described by Hallam as " our greatest poet in 
the middle ages." His poems are called " a well of En- 
glish undefiled;" but what infidel would be bold enough 
to read a page selected from them at random, before a 
promiscuous audience to-day ? 

There are books written by a clergyman of the church 
of England, in the last half of the eighteenth century, 
which, though once widely popular, could not now be 
read in public. Times change, and under the influence 
of the Bible and Christianity language changes with 
them. A century ago language was used in parlors that 
would now be hardly tolerable in bar-rooms and stables. 

The objection lies, not against the Bible, but against 
the English language, which grows purer as the Bible 
is circulated among English-speaking peoples. Chaucer 
wrote when England had no Bible; Shakespeare wrote 
before King James' translation was published; Sterne 
wrote when there was not a Bible Society in the world. 
The Bible was translated into the purest English then 
known. Xo book of that age will compare with it in 
purity, and the influence of the Bible and Christianity 



32 THE WOXDERFUL LAW. 

has elevated the language and the taste of the people 
till men object to language which in 1611 was deemed 
unob j ection able. 

Moreover, Moses gave to Israel a law; and a law must 
describe and specify the crimes which it prohibits. Not 
only the statute laws, but the standard medical treatises 
of every civilized country, contain expressions which 
might be counted inappropriate for promiscuous reading. 
The law of Moses deals not only with crimes, but with 
the public health. If it forbids crime, it must describe 
crime; and it must do it, not in the delicate euphemisms 
by which French writers convey the vilest thoughts in 
the politest words, but in plain, honest phrases that can 
be understood by common people. 

We maintain a semblance of delicacy when treating 
on these subjects, by using foreign words, or terms de- 
rived from foreign tongues, and not well understood by 
common people. The strangeness of such language and 
our imperfect acquaintance with its meaning, deprives it 
of the appearance of coarseness. But let the obscure and 
foreign words used in law and in medicine be translated 
into the plainest and simplest English for the common 
people, and there is not a charge of this kind brought 
against the Hebrew Scriptures but could be urged with 
equal force against our statute laws, standard medical lit- 
erature, and against the old English writers of both prose 
and poetry; — all of which are purity itself compared 
with the writings of heathen authors who had no Bibles, 
— such as the Greek and Roman classics which are studied 
to-day in colleges and academies. 

Hence the charge that the Bible is a bad book, " ob- 
scene, beastly, and vulgar" — made with infinite grace by 
the eloquent blasphemer whose name is said to have 
headed a petition for the repeal of the law designed to 
prohibit the circulation of obscene literature by his fellow 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 33 

infidels through the medium of the United States mails 
— falls to the ground. Surely, if the Bible is such a book 
as he describes, it would be taken up and circulated by 
his followers and supporters, and catalogued with the 
numerous obscene books and pictures which are advertised 
upon the covers of his blasphemous lectures, for circula- 
tion among his followers, who, if they found the Bible 
adapted to their peculiar tastes, would doubtless peruse it 
with fresh interest, and circulate it with unexampled zeal. 
There is one reason why they will never do this. While 
their orator asserts that "few books have been published 
containing more moral filth than this inspired Word of 
God," he spoils the circulation of the book among his 
friends by adding that " these stories are not redeemed 
by a single flash of wit or humor. They never rise above 
the dull details of stupid vice." Here is the trouble 
with the Bible. If it treated sin as a joke; if its pages 
were punctuated, like the lectures of this blasphemer, 
with "laughter," "applause," and "great laughter;" if it 
made clowns roar over crimes, and jested and sneered 
at infamies which the laws of every civilized and de- 
cent country condemn and punish, — it would then be 
much more acceptable to him and his jovial followers. 
But the Bible does not deal with sin in this way; neither 
do the laws of the land. The statutes against vice are 
"not enlivened by a single flash of wit or humor." Sin 
is no joke, and no matter for joking. The laws promul- 
gated, the sins condemned, and the punishments recorded, 
do not furnish amusing reading for infidels. They are 
not enlivened with flashes of "wit and humor." They 
deal with stern and awful realities, and warn men to turn 
away from sin, that they may escape ruin in this world, 
and perdition in the world to come. Infidels mock at sin, 
scoff at religion, and sneer at damnation, and then com- 
plain that the Bible, while rebuking and forbidding acts 



34 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

which wreck families, destroy lives, and ruin souls, does 
not enliven the subject "with a single flash of wit or 
humor" Unless greatly misrepresented, it is probable 
that no living man has shown greater skill, or had more 
experience, in the art of enlivening obscene stories with 
"flashes of wit and humor" than the man who denounces 
the Bible as "obscene, beastly, and vulgar," and "not 
redeemed by a single flash of wit or humor." Nero Ad- 
dled while Rome was on fire; and infidels complain that 
the Bible does not crack jokes over sins which desolate 
nations, and destroy soul and body, for this world and 
the next. 

WAS THE LAW OF MOSES A CRUEL LAW ? 

It is claimed that the law of Moses was an exceedingly 
cruel law, full of wrath, vengeance, and bloodshed; that 
it established a terrible tyranny, and was oppressive in 
the extreme. What are the facts in the case ? 

In the Jewish law, corporal punishment was sometimes 
inflicted, but under rigid restrictions. It is not very long 
since the j)ractice of flogging was abolished in the armies 
and navies of some of the foremost nations of modern 
civilization. Any one who has read accounts of persons 
being flogged in modern times one, two, three, four, or 
five hundred lashes with the cat-o'-nine-tails; of sailors 
being " flogged through the fleet;" or who has read the 
accounts of the floggings inflicted with the knout and 
other instruments of torture, — will perhaps be prepared to 
appreciate the " barbarity " of the law of Moses, which 
said: "It shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be 
beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and 
to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by 
a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and 
not exceed" Deut. xxv. 2, 3. 

It is true that modern civilization has largely discarded 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 35 

the lash, and yet in some cases it has been deemed expe- 
dient to return to it. When the London garroters were 
robbing people on the right hand and on the left, the 
magistrates sentenced them not only to imprisonment, 
but to a sound flogging; and when once the precious 
scoundrels felt the tingle of the lash upon their worthless 
hides, garroting suddenly went out of fashion. Wife- 
beating has been treated in a similar manner: and the lash 
is still retained in some cases of criminal discipline. And 
it is yet an open question whether it should be entirely 
discarded. Modern law takes men from their families 
and friends, leaving their wives to toil and their children 
to suffer, and politely ushers them into prison, keeping 
them in a gloomy cell for months, making honest men work 
to pay taxes for their support, turning them out at last, 
possibly finished rogues, perhaps broken in health and 
crushed in spirit, but bearing the brand of crime and im- 
prisonment upon them. The law of Moses, without jails, 
prisons, or penitentiaries, settled the whole matter at 
once with an infliction of less than forty stripes, and the 
man went about his business and supported his family; 
his back got well, and he learned to obey the laws. 
This was Jewish law. Are we certain that the laws of 
modern civilization are greatly superior to these ordi- 
nances ? And to what country can infidelity point as an 
example of humanity, that has not been for generations 
under the influence of this same Mosaic law ? 

By an act passed in 22 Henry VIII., vagrants were to 
be"carriedto some market town or other place, and there 
tied to the end of a cart and beaten with whips through 
such market town or other place, till the back should be 
bloody by reason of such whipping" (Burn's Justice, 
yoI. v. 501). And there are abundant records in England 
of the whipping of men, with their wives and children, 
widows and maidens, who were "vagrants" or wandering 



36 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

beggars. When the writings of John Taylor, " the water 
poet," were published, in 1630, he says: 

" In London, and within a mile I ween, 
There are of jails and prisons full eighteen, 
And sixty whipping posts and stocks and cages." * 

The law of Moses countenances no such cruelties and 
barbarities as flogging women and children, or any one 
else for poverty or begging. In its enactments princi- 
ples of humanity prevail. If we compare the Jewish law 
with the customs of the nations around them, the differ- 
ence will be manifest. The kings of Israel had no "burn- 
ing, fiery furnace" for the punishment of offenders, like 
the king of Babylon ; no " den of lions," like the Medes 
and the Persians. They were not accustomed to bore out 
peoples' eyes, or cut off their hands, like the Assyrians. 
The law of Moses knew nothing of crucifixion, which 
was practiced among the Romans, the horrors and pains 
of which extended to the third, and sometimes to the 
seventh day. It knew nothing of punishment by tor- 
ture on the rack, of breaking on the wheel, of impaling, 
of flaying alive, of roasting over a slow fire, of drown- 
ing, of exposure to serpents and wild beasts, of tearing 
in pieces by wild horses, of drawing and quartering, of 
exposing upon the gibbet, or fixing human heads and 
hands over gates, on walls, or in public places; or any of 
the similar cruel and horrible inflictions which abounded 
even in civilized countries almost down to the present 
time. 

The punishments prescribed by the law of Moses were 
restitution, stripes, servitude, the sword, and stoning; and 
in certain cases burning was inflicted, but this is not said 
to be burning alive, but was probably the burning of those 
who had been previously put to death. Persons after 
being slain, were sometimes hung up, and thus publicly 

♦Chambers' Book of Days, May 5. 



THE AVOXDERFUL LAW. 37 

exhibited, but they were not to remain exposed over 
night, but niust at once be buried. 

When we consider the severities of the laws of ancient 
Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt, we cannot deny that the 
Jewish law, as a whole, was moderate and merciful be- 
yond any law then in existence, and also beyond most of 
the laws of modern times. Of course a code of martial 
laws, for the government of a people just escaped from 
slavery, in a country where prisons, jails, and reformato- 
ries were unknown, and where punishment must of ne- 
cessity be summary, would necessarily differ materially 
from laws established under different circumstances. But 
in spite of all these difficulties, the law of Moses must 
still be regarded as a law where mercy rejoiced against 
judgment. 

It was not, indeed, a rose-water remedy for the wild 
disorders of a barbarous age, where society must protect 
itself or perish, and must protect itself by energetic 
measures, because no others would avail. Modern refine- 
ment has reduced the number of capital crimes to a min- 
imum, and by the allowance of various delays and eva- 
sions has rendered the detection and punishment of the 
guilty infrequent and almost impossible, while murders 
have increased beyond parallel.* 

Under the Jewish law there were four classes of capi- 
tal crimes: idolatry, which was treason against God, the 
Supreme Ruler; deliberate murder; drunkenness joined 
with persistent disobedience and abuse of parents; and 
gross and degrading crimes arising from the indulp-ence 
of unbridled lusts, impairing or destroying the life of the 

*Skepties boast of the rapid progress of infidel and atheistic ideas. Their boast 
is doubtless true, for the papers state that there were more than twice as many 
homicides in the United States in the year 1884 as there were in the year 1883. 
This indicates that some men are coming to believe that the declaration that God 
said " Thou shalt not kill" was one of the "Mistakes of Moses." If these 
are the first fruits, ,; What shall the harvest be? " 



38 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

future generations, and so sapping the very foundations of 
human society. 

The capital crimes in these four classes number about 
seventeen. We start at such a number, forgetting that 
an army of six hundred thousand men cannot exist with- 
out discipline, and that, under military law at the present 
time, capital offenses are almost numberless, and men are 
tried by drum-head court-martial, and promptly executed, 
for offenses too numerous to mention. 

Before our skeptical friends lose themselves in rhap- 
sodies over the sanguinary barbarism of the Mosaic law, 
let us call to mind a few cold facts. Great Britain has 
been progressing for a number of centuries, and was 
not in utter barbarism two hundred years ago. And yet, 
after three thousand years in which to improve on the 
Mosaic law, there were at the beginning of this nine- 
teenth century more than ten times as many capital of- 
fenses under the lavis of Great Britain as there ever were 
under the laws of Moses. 

Of course the earliest laws of Great Britain inflicted 
capital punishment for certain crimes, probably more nu- 
merous than those that were punished with death under 
Mosaic law; but as we pass down the ages we find that 
the number of capital crimes was largely increased from 
time to time by new and stringent legislation. 

Under the reign of the Plantagenets, from 1154 to 
1485, four crimes were made capital. In the time of the 
Tudors, from 1485 to 1603, twenty-seven more crimes were 
added to the number punishable with death. Under the 
reign of the Stuarts thirty-six offenses were made capi- 
tal; and under the house of Brunswick one hundred and 
fifty-four more crimes were made punishable with death; 
an increase of 233 capital crimes between the years 1154 
and 1807, at which time nearly three hundred crimes of 
various grades were punishable by death in Great Britain. 



THE WOXDEEFUL LAW. 39 

Men were punishable with death for stealing twelve- 
pence-ha'penny, for stealing a sheep, shooting game, or 
coining money. Soldiers and sailors found begging with- 
out testimonials of discharge from service were punish- 
able with death, and a host of trivial offenses were made 
capital crimes. 

About 1809, Romilly procured the passage of a bill to 
repeal the statute which made death the penalty for stealing 
from the person. In 1810 he tried unsuccessfully to secure 
the repeal of the statute which made stealing from a 
shop five shillings' worth of goods a crime punishable 
with death. The death penalty for coining was repealed 
in 1S32. The death penalty for stealing horses, sheep, 
and cattle, and for larceny in dwellings to the amount of 
five shillings, was repealed in July, 1832. The death pen- 
alty for forgery or for uttering counterfeit money, was 
repealed August 15, 1832; that for house-breaking, Au- 
gust, 1833; and finally the offenses punishable with death 
by civil law in Great Britain were reduced to ten. 

But before this reform took place, convictions were 
numerous and deaths frequent. Ireland in 1822 had 
101 executions; and since 1810 more than fourteen hun- 
dred persons were executed in Wales for offenses not now 
punishable with death. For such offenses, in the four 
years from 1828 to 1831, not less than 3786 persons were 
condemned to death, and 66 were executed.* 

The humane skeptic who devotes his time to blas- 
pheming Moses' law for its cruelties, and attributes them 
to the barbarism of by-gone ages, would do well to ex- 
plain how it comes that in the land of Shakspeare and 
Milton, and in the enlightenment of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, there were more than ten times as many crimes pun- 
ishable with death as under the law given by Moses to 
those Israelitish " barbarians." 



* See Robert Ratitoul's Addresses, pp. 492, 493, 513. 



40 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

It will not do to say that this is the work of a Chris- 
tian government, for there are no Christian governments, 
and never were; and besides, the stream cannot rise 
higher than the fountain, and any legislation derived 
from Christian sources must keep within the limits laid 
down in the Scriptures. But instead of this, here we have 
in civilized lands, and in the beginning of the nineteenth 
century, laws tenfold more severe than those recorded in 
that old Bible with which infidels find so much fault. 
And in lands where the Bible has been unknown the 
state of things has been and still is tenfold toorse, not- 
withstanding all the fine theories of skeptics concerning 
human progression and perfectibility. Infidelity has 
never yet civilized a nation, and it will be impossible to 
find civilization, education, morality and security on earth, 
outside of the Holy Scriptures. 

When in 1802 Welsh children had to walk seven miles 
to find a Bible in which to read over the preacher's text; 
when a man in Nova Scotia had to travel sixty miles over 
the snow to obtain a copy of the Word of God; when in 
all the world there was not a single society for the trans- 
lation and diffusion of the Living Oracles in various 
tongues; when a pocket "reference Bible" had never 
been seen, and when there were probably not more than 
four million copies of the Scriptures on earth, — it was 
then that life was held so cheaply in Great Britain that 
death was the penalty of hundreds of crimes. 

In 1804 the British and Foreign Bible Society was 
founded; within four years forty-three editions of the 
Scriptures, in seventeen different languages, were published 
or in progress, — making a grand total of one hundred 
and ninety-six thousand copies of the Sacred Book.* And 
the very next year commenced the agitation which, keep- 
ing pace with Bible circulation, purged the statute books 

"* See Reasons for My Hope, by H. L. Hastings, pp. 69-71. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 41 

of those sanguinary laws which cursed and disgraced the 
nation. And in the last generation what man has done 
more in all Great Britain to reform abuses, lift up the 
poor and the weak, and protect them from wrong, than 
Lord Shaftesbury, for more than thirty years president 
of the British and Foreign Bible Society? 

The trouble with civilized lands is not that they are 
controlled by the principles contained in the Scriptures, 
but that there is so much heathenism still left among 
them; and hence there is need of severe and rigorous 
government. Nations which are unfit for liberty must 
submit to tyranny and severity; and none are fit for 
freedom but those whom the truth has made free. Hence 
governments established over ill-regulated populations 
must sometimes be administered with rigor; and this 
rigor is increased by tyrannical and foolish rulers, who 
neither know how to make laws nor to execute them 
wisely. Human nature is much the same to-day as in 
the time of Moses. The legal penalties of crime in the 
most enlightened nations, though varied in accordance 
with varying circumstances and not always for the better, 
have not had their severity greatly moderated since Moses 
gave his law. 

England was not alone in inflicting severe punishments. 
I have seen quite recently a dingy-looking little note for 
four shillings, issued by the General Assembly of Penn- 
sylvania in 1777, on which is printed, "To counterfeit 
this is death" 

There are probably to-day, under the civil and military 
laws of the United States of America, more crimes pun- 
ishable with death, than there were under the law given 
by Moses three thousand years ago. Men have been 
punished with death for falling asleep, after marching all 
day with knapsacks on their backs. Men have been 
punished with death for going to see their wives, or their 



42 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

mothers, or their children. Men have been punished 
with death for writing letters, for making signals, for 
conveying intelligence, for crossing lines, and for refusing 
to obey orders which were perhaps unreasonable. It would 
take a long time to relate the offenses punishable with 
death under martial law in this country. And yet the 
law Moses gave was a martial law. He was at the head 
of a vast army, and discipline must be observed. 

To-day, on the back of every bank and government 
note issued in the United States, may be read the state- 
ment that counterfeiting that note, or having in posses- 
sion any paper made in imitation of that note, is pun- 
ishable with a fine of five thousand dollars, and im- 
prisonment for fifteen years. Moses never fined a man 
five thousand dollars, or imprisoned him fifteen years, for 
having a quire of blank paper in his possession. Moses 
never killed a man for stealing a sheep or killing a deer, 
nor for stealing thirteen pence. Moses never condemned 
a man to death for writing another man's name on a piece of 
paper. Moses never punished a soldier or a sailor with 
death for begging. If two thousand years hence, some 
man who had lived to years of discretion and common 
sense, should find a copy of Moses' law, and a volume 
containing the laws of Great Britain and America, instead 
of abusing Moses for his barbarism, and traveling the 
country to tell about his mistakes, he would be astonished 
at the degeneracy of the human race, which after more 
than three thousand years' progression, enacted laws far 
more severe and sanguinary than those which Moses gave 
to the Jews in the wilderness of Sinai. 

STONING FOR SABBATH BREAKING. 

But it is said that Moses commanded a man to be put 
to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Precisely 
so; and any general commanding an army might have 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 43 

done the same under similar circumstances. A law had 
been enacted in the interest of the poor and the down- 
trodden, giving every laborer, every man, and every 
beast a weekly day of rest. That law was salutary. 
For the lack of its observance thousands of persons to- 
day are in untimely graves, and millions are dragging 
out weary, slavish lives. The law was a good one, and its 
observance of immense importance to the well-being of 
that people. This man openly and knowingly broke 
the law concerning the Sabbath. There is no evidence 
that death was the prescribed or ordinary penalty for a 
violation of this law. In fact, no definite penalty was 
attached to its violation; and hence the offender was 
arrested and placed in confinement "because it was not 
declared what should be done to him." Num. xv. 34. 
In any well disciplined army, a man for such a violation 
of military orders would be liable to be shot on the spot, 
or to be tried by drum-head court martial, sentenced to 
death for disobedience to orders, and promptly executed, 
as a warning to others, to prevent mutiny and anarchy in 
the camp. Had this open and flagrant violation of a 
wholesome law passed unpunished, discipline would have 
been at an end, and the people would have been robbed 
of the benefits of a weekly rest. Hence it was decided 
that the man should be taken without the camp, and put 
to death. It was a strictly military measure, and prompt- 
ed by a military necessity. The death of that man, in all 
probability, saved the lives of thousands of others who 
would have been worked to death without it ; just as a 
few rounds of cannon shot promptly poured into the 
midst of a yelling mob, avoids the havoc of an insurrec- 
tion, and saves the lives of hundreds of innocent persons. 
It does not appear that this offense was subsequently 
or ordinarily punished with death. The law was made 
in the interests of the people, and especially of the poor. 



44 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

The man-servant and the maid- servant, the ox, and the 
ass, all had the benefit of a weekly day of rest. And 
though the Jewish teachers by their traditions added 
greatly to the strictness of the law, repeatedly complain- 
ing of the Saviour and his disciples for breaking the Sab- 
bath day, He taught them that the Sabbath was made for 
the man, and not the man for the Sabbath; it was de- 
signed for man's repose and delight, rather than to be an 
instrument of oppression, bondage, and death. 

But at this time, when the Jews were just delivered 
from the unremitting toil of Egyptian bondage, they 
needed rest; and they doubtless prized it as those cannot 
who, living all their years under the beneficent arrange- 
ment of a weekly rest, in their pride and self-sufficiency 
seek to rebel at all authority, and to cast away one of the 
greatest boons which God ever conferred upon working- 
men, and one which has to do with man's highest inter- 
ests, physical, mental, and moral. 

The one man whose insubordination imperiled such an 
institution was stoned. The man died, but the Rest-day 
survived, and that day of rest is worth more to humanity 
than any one man, or any ten men, especially such men as 
those are who resist and rebel against a law so whole- 
some and beneficent as that which grants to every weary 
toiler a weekly day of rest. 

AN EYE FOR AN EYE. 

It is complained that the law of Moses sanctioned the 
ancient and well-nigh universal principle called lex tali- 
onis, or like for like. Thus it was written: "Thou shalt 
give' eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for 
foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for 
stripe." Exod. xxi. 24, 25. This law was not peculiar to 
Moses. It existed long afterward among the polished 
Athenians, and Solon, the wise legislator, enacted that 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 45 

whoever put out the eye of a one-eyed person should for his 
crime have both his own eyes put out. It also formed a part 
of the famous Twelve Tables of the Roman law, though 
afterwards it was changed to a fine. The law of Moses 
did not allow individuals to retaliate; — the legal tribu- 
nal must pronounce the sentence, and inflict the punish- 
ment prescribed. 

Are we sure that such a law was a bad one ? If a rich 
man gouged out his neighbor's eye, he could not walk in- 
to court and settle by paying a paltry fine: he must have 
his oicn eye taken out, and so learn just how pleasant it 
was to lose an eye. One such lesson would teach that 
man to leave other people's eyes alone. Probably one 
such lesson would serve for a whole community. If a 
man knocked out another man's tooth, one of his own 
teeth were extracted, and he thus had a taste of his own 
medicine. No rich man could assault, or bruise, or maim 
his poorer neighbor, and atone for it by fine. He must 
receive upon his own person the punishment for his crimes. 
Whoever wilfully destroyed the life of another man 
must lose his own life. Any offense against property 
could be settled by fines or other punishments. There 
was no hanging for thieving, or any crime against prop- 
erty; property went for property, but the murderer must 
give life for life. 

Could any law have been devised more just in its char- 
acter, or more salutary in its influence on such a com- 
munity, than this? It is true that the Saviour taught a 
more excellent way, but not a more just way. Moses pro- 
claimed law and justice for the government of a nation; 
Christ preached love and mercy for the guidance of in- 
dividuals who take his yoke upon them. Law to rule a 
nation is one thing, and gospel to guide individuals is 
quite another thing. And where the gospel has not gone, 
or is not obeyed, law is necessary to preserve public order 



46 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

and render life safe and existence in this world tolerable. 

But it was not required that this law should in all cases 
be rigidly executed. A man who had offended might make 
terms with the injured person, and if he could satify him 
by a fine or payment of damages, the matter could be 
ended. Such satisfactions were, and still are, common in 
the East; — in fact, so common that Moses found it needful 
to forbid them in a case of deliberate murder, saying 
" Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer." 
Num. xxxv. 31. This law, "an eye for an eye, and a 
tooth for a tooth," stood as a perpetual guardian over the 
poor. It counted every man's person sacred. Brutal 
men are cowardly, and such a law as this naturally re- 
strained their brutality, and protected the helpless against 
assaults and violence. Are we sure that modern law- 
makers have made great progress in this line of legisla- 
tion? Are our laws which allow a drunken brute to kick 
and beat and maim his wife, and as a punishment for it 
send him to prison for a few weeks — where, at the expense 
of honest, hard-working men, he has better food and care 
than he had before, and is then sent forth to repeat his 
offenses — so much superior to the law which provided 
wound for wound, and stripe for stripe, as skeptics would 
have us imagine ? 

Surely the descendants of men who less than a century 
ago punished nearly three hundred crimes with death, and 
who would hang a man like a dog for stealing a horse 
or a sheep,* need not go back three thousand years 
to pour out the vials of their wrath upon a lawgiver 
whose penal code only specified seventeen capital offenses; 

* " It is not so very long since both the theory and the practice of British juris- 
prudence might be expressed in the Hebrew formula of an eye for an eye,' or in such 
maxims as ' a man for a sheep,' ' a man for a guinea,' nay, mark it, ye who stigma- 
tize the Mosaic law of retaliation as savoring of barbaric rudeness, * a man for 
twelvepence-farthing. ,, —E,. C Wines, Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancimt 
Hebrews, p. 273. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 47 

and under which no man was punishable with death for 
any crime which only affected the property or pecuniary 
interests of the community. 

PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES AGAINST PURITY. 

Skeptics complain bitterly of the stern judgments 
which the Mosaic law visited upon crimes against moral- 
ity and chastity; which many infidels do not regard as 
worthy of severe punishment. There was reason for 
this severity. The author of that ancient law understood 
the deadly nature of sin, even in its incipient forms. He 
knew that the wages of sin was death, even though the 
sin might be respectable or pleasurable. 

Speaking to a friend, of an acquaintance of former years, 
a man said, " There seems to have been some fatality at- 
tending him and his family. He died, and his wife died, 
and his children, one after another, all died in early life." 
His friend did not tell him what he well knew, that in 
his youth that man was contaminated and stained by 
vicious indulgences, and that in those early years could 
doubtless be found the secret of that "fatality" which 
not only blasted his own life, bringing him down to the 
grave in his brown hair, but also wrecked the lives of his 
wife and children, and utterly extinguished his race, at a 
time when he should have been in manhood's prime. 

Against such a crime as this, for which modern law has 
neither name nor punishment, the sternest justice is the 
truest mercy. The murder of an individual is a light thing 
compared with indulgence in sin which may result in 
sowing seeds of anguish, disease, and death through a 
whole household, blasting the life of a family, and blot- 
ting a race out of existence. 

Under the law of Moses, crimes against virtue and 
morality were sternly dealt with, greatly to the disgust 
of modern infidels, many of whom, while jealous of the 



48 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

rights of property, and stern in their condemnation of 
crimes of violence, would condone other sins which the 
law of Moses vigorously condemned. But since vicious in- 
dulgences in their effects upon individuals and society 
are often more deadly than murder itself, nothing can be 
more debasing and ruinous to communities than such sins. 
An hour of dissipation and debauchery may lay the foun- 
dation for unutterable pain and sorrow, not only bringing 
years of anguish to the guilty reveler, but condemning to 
suffering and death innocent persons whose lives are 
blasted by his transgressions. The legislation of short- 
sighted man allows the seeds of death to be sown, and 
only interferes with the ingathering of the horrible harvest. 
But the Author of the Mosaic law, beholding the end 
from the beginning, could see how the sin which to-day 
seems so light, would scatter blight and sorrow and dark- 
ness over the race ; and as a preventive measure, God's 
law inflicts the severest punishment at the beginning, to 
prevent the untold calamities that are sure to come at 
the end. And it was to clear the ground of the horrible 
abominations of heathenism, and make purity and decency 
possible in one little central spot on earth, thus opening 
the door of blessing to other lands and peoples, that God 
decreed the utter destruction of 

THE SEVEN NATIONS OF CANAAN. 

Infidels never weary of finding fault with the conduct 
of the Israelites in entering Canaan and dispossessing 
and destroying the seven nations who dwelt there. No 
language is too severe, in their estimation, to describe the 
wickedness of the children of Israel in driving out the 
Canaanites. 

We do not hear any complaint on the part of skeptics 
about other nations who have immigrated, and dispos- 
sessed the inhabitants of different lands. Indeed it seems 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 49 

quite in the natural order of events for one nation, vig- 
orous and energetic, to invade and overcome another na- 
tion, luxurious and debauched. When Rome becomes 
utterly corrupt and lost to virtue and patriotism, the 
Goths and Yandals are usually at hand to crush and de- 
stroy a civilization which is hollow and decayed at the 
very core. Among other nations this is but " the survival 
of the fittest;" in the Israelites it is a horrible crime 
for the fittest to survive. 

When God promised to give to Abraham the land 
of Canaan, he told him expressly that he could not 
enter immediately upon the possession of it. His children 
must go into Egypt and sojourn there for a time. But 
he said, " In the fourth generation they shall come hither 
again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" 
Gen. xv. 16. 

So long as a trace of virtue remained among the inhab- 
itants of Canaan, so long as there was any reason what- 
ever for leniency, so long the mercy of God spared the 
Canaanites; and it was not until their iniquity was full, 
and justice and mercy alike demanded their extermina- 
tion, that Israel was given possession of the land. 

The eighteenth chapter of Leviticus contains prohibi- 
tions of various crimes of the grossest and basest character. 
In conclusion it is written, " Defile not ye yourselves in 
any of these things, for in all these the nations were de- 
filed that I cast out before you. The land is defiled, and 
therefore do I visit the iniquities thereof upon it. The 
land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. For all these 
abominations have the men of the land done, which were 
before you, and the land is defiled." And so the Israel- 
ites were solemnly charged not to commit any of these 
abominations, " that the land spue not you out also, when 
ye defile it, as it spued out the nations which were before 
you." 



50 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

The nations of Canaan had forfeited their right to live. 
They were utterly debased and brutalized. Incest, bes- 
tiality, and every form of the grossest vice was prev- 
alent among them. Individuals committing such crimes 
in any civilized community would forfeit life or liberty. 
What must have been the state of Canaanitish society, 
when the exceptional depths of horrible crime which 
startle civilization were but the dead level of their ordi- 
nary life? And these were not the crimes of individuals, 
but of society as a whole. There was no punishment for 
them; no law could reach them; the government itself 
was corrupt. Their very religion was corruption itself; 
their worship was lust and debauchery. All was one 
mass of reeking pollution. Only the judgments of God 
could purge the guilty land. 

The iniquity of the Amorites had become full; and 
when Israel entered the land of Canaan a warfare began 
between two rival religions and civilizations, differing 
from each other as light differs from darkness, as God 
differs from Satan, as heaven differs from hell. It was a 
struggle between the solemn worship of the sanctuary of 
God, and the wild and bloody orgies of a licentious idol- 
atry. It was a struggle between virtue and vice, chastity 
and debauchery, between ordererly family life and disso- 
lute revelry, between reverent adoration of Almighty God, 
and the unclean revelings into which Satan had enticed 
the world. The two systems Avere at war, and were as 
irreconcilable as fire and water. Which should triumph in 
the struggle? On the answer to this question hung the 
destinies of the race. Victory for Midian and Baal sig- 
nified universal pollution. Triumph for Israel meant the 
planting of an island of purity in an ocean of filth; a 
single mountain peak of decency in the midst of a deluge 
of debauchery. Even this solitary elevation was some- 
times almost overwhelmed by the swelling billows of the 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 51 

surrounding sea of sin. The cancer of vice must be cut 
out with the sword of war, or the race must rot and per- 
ish. The death of the few meant the salvation of the 
many. The preservation of Balaam, and Balak, and Mid- 
ian, and Amalek, meant the pollution, the corruption, and 
damnation of the human race. The destruction of these 
vile and noxious weeds would give room for the vine of 
the Lord to be planted, the nation he had chosen, that 
through it all the nations of the earth should be blessed. 

The people of Canaan well knew that God had given 
that land to the Israelites. Joshua ii. 9-11. Their true 
course was to submit or emigrate. They did neither. 
The deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and their victory 
over every opposing foe, was a sufficient intimation that 
it was useless to resist them. In fact some of the people 
did emigrate, and there appears to have been a tradition 
among the people in the western part of North Africa, 
that their ancestors were fugitives who were exiled from 
Palestine by "Joshua the son of Nun, the plunderer.* 

But why, it may be asked, were the Israelites bidden 
to inflict these punishments ? Why were not the Canaan- 
ites destroyed by special judgments of heaven, as were the 
antediluvians, the Cities of the Plain, or Pompeii and Her- 
culaneum, which were overthrown in the midst of their 
debaucheries ? The answer is this, these judgments 
had been tried. The antediluvians had been overwhelmed 
by the deluge, but the Sodomites still corrupted them- 
selves. The Cities of the Plain were destroyed with fire 
from heaven in this very country, and yet the nations of 
Canaan did not profit by their example. We know how 
the ungodly and skeptical of to-day reject the idea of di- 
vine judgments, and do not for a moment admit that 
calamities are visited upon people in consequence of their 
iniquities. All are said to occur as the effects of natural 

♦See Rawlinson's Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament, chap. iv. p. 95. 



52 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

causes; the Divine Being has no interest or connection 
with them. By the Canaanites, calamities of this kind 
would have been attributed to the anger of their own 
demoniac gods, and would have incited them to fresh 
idolatries. And hence in order to emphasize the fact that 
this was a divine judgment, the Israelites, as God's mes- 
sengers, were bidden to complete the destruction, and they 
were distinctly told that if they imitated their predeces- 
sors in the abominations which had caused their overthrow, 
they themselves would find no exemption from a similar 
doom. A remarkable illustration of this is presented in 

THE REBELLION OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. 

This rebellion and its punishment are described in the 
closing chapters of the book of Judges: It was when there 
was no king in Israel, and the government was unsettled, 
and more or less disorderly. A certain Levite from 
Mount Ephraim, passing peaceably through the territory 
of Benjamin, stopped at Gibeah for the night with his 
wife. Here some demons, whom the historian calls " sons 
of Belial," abused the wife in such a way as to cause her 
death. The husband appealed for retribution to all the 
tribes of Israel. The chiefs of all the people presented 
themselves in the assembly of the people at Mizpeh, — four 
hundred thousand footmen. All the tribes of Israel ex- 
cepting Benjamin were represented there. They carefully 
examined the facts of the case, and found that certain of 
the inhabitants of Gibeah had not only violated the rights 
of hospitality and humanity, and broken the peace, and 
committed a horrible crime, but they had also violated 
the rights of all the tribes to a safe passage through the 
whole country. No man in Israel could travel in safety 
if such outrages went unpunished. But no one of these 
tribes had jurisdiction in the case. Though they all 
were assembled, they could not proceed directly to 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 53 

seize and punish the offenders. They therefore sent men 
" through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, What wick- 
edness is this that has been done among you?" and de- 
manding that the guilty men should be delivered up to 
punishment. Had they done this, the whole matter would 
have been settled forthwith. The tribe of Benjamin 
would not obey the summons, but determined rather to 
dissolve their union with the other tribes, and accord- 
ingly gathered themselves together to go out to battle 
against the children of Israel. 

This act, of course, changed the whole case. It was 
no longer the murder of an individual by a few sons of 
Belial in Gibeah, but it was a justification of their 
crime, and an open rebellion of the whole tribe of Ben- 
jamin. The authority of the nation, the constitution, and 
the Almighty were defied, and murderers whose lives 
would be forfeited in any decent country, were pro- 
tected. Benjamin raised an army and levied war against 
all Israel, in defense of base and villanous scoundrels 
who deserved immediate execution for their atrocious 
crimes. The question now was whether the nation should 
live, or whether it should be broken up, and anarchy 
should prevail. The children of Israel inquired of the 
Lord, and the answer was that they should accept 
the issue forced upon them. They did so; but so stub- 
born were the children of Benjamin that the national 
forces were twice defeated ; but the third time they re- 
turned to the battle Benjamin was routed, twenty-five 
thousand men were slain, the offending city was destroyed, 
the region around was desolated; and six hundred 
men, posted on an inaccessible rock, were all that remained 
of the tribe. This was evidently a most terrible inflic- 
tion, and the sacred writer expressly declares that it was 
at a time when there was no king in Israel, and every man 
did that which was right in his own eyes. Still it can 



54 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

hardly be denied that this proceeding, terrible as it was, 
was in the interests of order and righteousness. If Benja- 
min had been allowed to nullify the constitution of the 
nation and harbor murderers and outlaws; if citizens 
were allowed to commit the grossest crimes and be pro- 
tected in their guilt, of course there was an end to the 
integrity of Israel as a nation. If one tribe were allowed 
to rebel and withdraw from the social compact, another 
might do the same; and the history of the nation would 
soon be a history of petty warfares and international 
strifes. The tribe of Benjamin must have been far gone 
in iniquity to have undertaken such a war for such a 
cause. Centrally situated as they were, had they been 
allowed to proceed in their course they would have 
wrecked the nation. Hence the highest patriotism de- 
manded the overthrow of a rebellion which defied national 
authority and justified the most revolting crimes. 

THE DESTRUCTION OP THE MIDIANITES. 

One of the bitterest complaints made by infidels against 
the Bible has been stated in the following words: 

" Our heavenly Father commanded the Hebrews to kill 
men and women, fathers, sons, and brothers, but to pre- 
serve the girls alive. Why were not the maidens also 
killed ? Why were they spared ? Read the thirty-first 
chapter of Numbers, and you w T ill find that the maidens 
were given to the soldiers and to the priests. Is there, 
in .all the history of war, a more infamous thing than this ? " 

The infidel's complaint seems to be that these maidens 
were not killed. Infidels have never forgiven Moses for 
sparing the lives of those young girls. They have rung 
the changes on this subject with a persistency which in- 
dicates their interest in the topic. If the Israelites had 
killed them all, as was not unusual in those days, they 
perhaps would have been better satisfied. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 55 

Let us look at the facts in this particular case. The 
people referred to were Midianites. Midian was not one 
of the seven nations which the Israelites were bidden to 
drive out from Canaan. They were not invaded by the 
Israelites, and Israel had no desire for their territory, but 
were simply passing through to their own inheritance in 
Canaan. While on their march toward Canaan "Israel 
sent messengers unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, saying, 
Let me pass through thy land; we will not turn into the 
fields or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the 
waters of the well, but we will go along by the king's 
highway until we be past thy borders. And Sihon looidd 
not suffer Israel to }jass through his border; but Sihon 
gathered all his people together, and went out against 
Israel into the wilderness : and he came to Jahaz and 
fought against Israel, and Israel smote him with the edge 
of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto 
Jabbok, even unto the children of Amnion; for the bor- 
der of the children of Ammon was strong." Num. xxi. 
Thus Sihon, king of the Amorites, refused to allow the 
Israelites who were fleeing from slavery the poor privi- 
lege of passing quietly through his land; but instead of 
tins made war upon them, and was destroyed, and his 
land was given to the Israelites. 

They then turned and went up by the way of Bashan. 
" And Og, the king of Bashan, luent out against them, he 
and all his people, to the battle at Edrei." Num. xxi. 33. 
The Lord delivered Og into the hands of Israel, and his 
people were destroyed, and Israel possessed the land. 
Still marching forward, they reached the plains of Moab, 
and Balak, the king of Moab, consulted with the elders 
of Midian, and sent the elders of Moab and the elders of 
Midian as messengers to hire Balaam to curse Israel, say- 
ing, " Peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite 
them and drive them out of the land." Num. xxii. 6. 



56 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

Balaam coveted the wages of unrighteousness, and came 
to curse Israel; but God turned the curse into a blessing, 
and he prophesied of Israel's greatness, and solemnly 
told Balak that there was no enchantment or divination 
that could prevail against that nation. 

Having thus failed to procure a curse upon Israel, and 
so defeat them in battle, Balak wished to contrive some 
other way to effect their ruin; and Balaam craftily pro- 
posed that the Midianites should send their wives and 
their daughters to seduce the Israelites to participate in 
the idolatrous debaucheries attendant on the worship of 
Baal-Peor. This Satanic plan proved effectual. "Israel 
abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whore- 
dom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the 
people unto the sacrifice of their gods, and the people did 
eat and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined 
himself unto Baal-Peor. And the anger of the Lord was 
kindled against Israel." 

The very life of the nation was in danger. When we 
remember that centuries later there were in polished 
Corinth not less than a thousand prostitutes connected 
with a single temple of Venus; when we remember that 
every woman dwelling in Babylon was required once in 
her life to prostitute herself to strangers in the precincts 
of Venus's temple, we can imagine what must have been 
the religious rites in which the Moabites, the incestuous 
descendants of Lot, engaged. And in addition to these 
abominations we are told in later times that the apostate 
Israelites "built also the high places of Baal, to burn their 
sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal." Jer. xix. 5. 

This was the kind of god and this the style of worship 
into which the Israelites had been beguiled. The women, 
and even the daughters of the princes, lent themselves to 
seduce and debase the children of Israel, defiling even the 
camp of Israel with their abominations, that they might 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 57 

bring upon the chosen people the curse of God, and so 
accomplish their destruction. As a result of this, dis- 
ease entered the camp, and twenty-four thousand of the 
people of Israel died, and a multitude of the Israelites 
who had been involved in these abominations were slain 
by the command of God. 

It was after all this had transpired that "the Lord 
spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite 
them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they 
have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the mat- 
ter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their 
sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's 
sake." Num. xxv. 16-18. Accordingly, twelve thousand 
men were sent forth by Moses to execute vengeance upon 
the Midianites. They warred against them; and when 
Israel went to war, it was with the expectation that some- 
body would get hurt. When they had conquered the 
Midianites, they slew all the males that had opposed them. 
They were not the first nor the last army that went forth 
determined to take no prisoners of the men found in arms 
against them. Men who kept away from war escaped the 
sword; but those who fought must abide the issue of 
the battle. They slew the live kings of Midian, and 
Balaam the son of Beor also received the reward of his in- 
iquity, perishing at their hands. With customary hu- 
manity, under the general law of the Jewish nation in 
the time of war, they took all the women and maidens, 
with all the little ones, as captives. Men in arms for- 
feited their lives. The women and little ones were taken 
captive and dispersed among the people, and probably 
better treated than they ever had been at home; and 
finally became incorporated into the Jewish nation. "So 
the children of Israel took all the women and maidens 
captive, and their little ones, and took a spoil of all their 
cattle and all their flocks, and all their goods." In this 



5 8 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

particular case, when the captives were brought in, special 
reasons caused a departure from their usual custom. 

Moses said, " Have ye saved all the women alive ? Be- 
hold, these caused the children of Israel, through the 
counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in 
the matter of Peor; and there was a plague among the 
congregation of the Lord." These women whom they 
had spared were the very persons who were sent by their 
husbands and brothers to seduce Israel, and were insti- 
gators of the sin into which Israel had fallen, — the guilty 
cause of the curse and calamity which came upon them. 
These women of Midian were simply a horde of prosti- 
tutes, who had done their worst to scatter disease and 
death through the camp of Israel, coolly, deliberately, and 
purposely, by the direction of their rulers, and with the 
approval of their husbands and fathers. Unfit to live, a 
disgrace and curse to the community, persons whose very 
presence signified corruption and debauchery, disease and 
death; who had probably caused the death of more than 
their own number of the Israelites, and who, if allowed 
to live among them, would have utterly ruined the nation 
through the pollutions and diseases that followed their 
iniquitous course, — these were the persons who, in the 
interest of home and family life; in the interest of decency 
and morality; in the interest of generations to come, 
whose very existence was imperiled by their presence, 
were, by the command of Moses, exterminated and swept 
from the land as by the besom of destruction. Doubtless 
many of the skeptics of the day would gladly have spared 
them. They have never forgiven Moses for blotting out 
a people in whose principles and conduct they find so 
much to approve, admire, and imitate. 

When these idolatrous prostitutes were exterminated, 
there were left two classes. First, the male children, 
who, if left to themselves, would perish with want and 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 59 

neglect. It will hardly be claimed that the Israelites, 
a company of fugitives "red from the lash, and re- 
cent from the chain," were under obligation to pre- 
serve, protect, defend, and support those children, who, 
growing up with all their hereditary proclivities to evil, 
could only be expected to develop into intractable, vicious, 
and licentious men, who at best would be a constant 
curse and danger to the commonwealth, and might in 
mature life undertake to avenge their parents' death. 
Accordingly they shared the doom of their parents. Infi- 
dels might have left them to starve to death on the sands, 
as a special illustration of their mercifulness. 

There remained only the young girls, between infancy 
and youth, who as yet had not been corrupted and polluted 
by the vices and idolatries of the nation. They were 
preserved alive. Infidels intimate, doubtless judging the 
Israelites by themselves, that they w r ere preserved for the 
basest of purposes. Had this been the object, persons of 
ordinary perception can see that the ones destroyed would 
have been the ones preserved, while those preserved would 
have been held of less account. 

These female children were preserved as servants, and 
as such came under the provisions of the Jewish law. 
Had they been persons of mature age, they would still 
have been hedged about by that protective law. No 
Israelitish warrior was permitted to offer a captive woman 
either insult or outrage. 

This was the law: "When thou goest forth to war 
against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath deliv- 
ered them into thine hands and thou hast taken them 
captiv r e, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, 
and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to 
be thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine 
house; and she shall shave her head and pare her nails ; 
and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off 



60 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her 
father and mother a full month; and after that thou 
si) alt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be 
thy wife." Deut. xxi. 10-14. From this it appears that 
no Israelite was allowed even to take a captive as a wife, 
until after an interval of at least a month from the time 
she was taken captive and brought to his house. After 
the month had expired, if his inclinations had not changed 
upon seeing her shaven, and deprived of her attractions, 
and if she had exhibited no traits of character which in- 
spired dislike, he was at liberty to marry her; but she 
was not his slave, nor under his absolute control. He 
was to be her husband, and she was to be his wife; 
and even then, if the union was irksome and distasteful 
to her, her remedy was in her own hands; for if she so 
conducted herself that he had no delight in her, he was 
to let her go whither she would. He was not allowed to 
sell her for money, but she was to have her liberty abso- 
lutely. 

This was the fate of those Midianitish maidens and chil- 
dren. Their fathers had fought against Israel, and all 
the males had been destroyed. Their mothers and sisters 
had seduced Israel to sin, and had been justly punished 
with death. These innocent girls were preserved, and 
scattered among the virtuous families of the Israelites, 
trained to the knowledge of God and truth and duty, 
made servants, under the mild protective rules of servi- 
tude prescribed by the Mosaic law, and finally married 
into the families of the Israelites, and incorporated into 
the Jewish nation. Infidels have never forgiven the act. 
It has been to them a perpetual occasion of scoffing, mock- 
ing and complaining. If Israel had slaughtered the whole 
of the Midianites, as was anciently customary, we should 
have heard less complaint. If they had preserved all the 
women, for the only purpose for which infidels seem to 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 61 

think they were worth preserving, and had brought in 
twenty or thirty thousand Midianitish prostitutes into the 
Jewish nation, to corrupt and destroy it, infidels would 
have found no fault with that. Or if they had allowed 
those girls to grow up to the lives of debauchery and 
prostitution which inevitably awaited them in their own 
nation, we should have heard no complaint from infidels 
on that score. But the fact that they were preserved 
from death, virtuously trained, and respectably married, is 
a crime which the infidelity of modern times has never 
been able to forgive or forget. 

By this arrangement thirty-two thousand Midianitish 
female children were incorporated into the nation. Per- 
haps as many adult women who had been corrupted by 
heathenish, vices were destroyed. It was a terrible ven- 
geance, and none but God could have presumed to com- 
mand it. But what would have been the condition of 
a community situated as the Israelites were, in the 
wilderness, away from settled government and police 
regulations, destitute of prisons and appliances for the 
enforcement of social order, had there been launched 
upon them, or incorporated with them, thirty thousand 
infamous women, gathered from the ranks of the debased 
and idolatrous Midianites; persons whose very worship 
was debauchery, and who would have brought with them 
all the diseases and pollutions which such a course of life 
entails? The corruption would have inevitably spread, 
the curse of God would have fallen upon Israel, and that 
nation which was the world's last hope, the only nation 
where purity was enjoined and idolatry was prohibited, 
would have gone down into the same abyss which had 
engulfed the heathen world. The sword of wrath cut 
out this Midianitish cancer. Their armies were slain, and 
their women reaped the vengeance they had courted when 
they sought to seduce Israel and planned their destruction. 



62 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

We are not, however, to suppose that the entire nation 
was destroyed. They were a wandering race, and were 
scattered over a wide extent of country. Only twelve 
thousand Israelites went to battle. They slew those who 
resisted, and the others were spared. Long years after, 
we find Midian's hosts invading the land of Israel, as 
grasshoppers for multitude, " the sword of the Lord and 
of Gideon " being unsheathed to repel them. Judg. vi. vii. 

The punishments inflicted on the Midianites, the Ca- 
naanites, and all those besotted nations which warred 
against Israel, though severe, were demanded by the 
necessities of the case, and were conducive to the public 
good. Had the corrupt nations of Canaan been subju- 
gated, enslaved, and preserved, they would have inevita- 
bly demoralized their conquerors, who, in their idle leis- 
ure, could not have escaped contamination, if surrounded 
by a people so utterly corrupt as the Canaanites. Had 
the destruction of these nations resulted wholly from 
natural causes, by slow decay or from sudden calamities, 
the hand of God would not have been recognized in the 
punishment, and men would not have learned his hatred 
of sin and impurity. Hence, that the moral lesson might 
not be lost upon both Israel and the surrounding nations, 
such measures were taken as would leave no uncertainty 
concerning the matter. First, God sent hornets before Is- 
rael, "to drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hit- 
tites;"* much as a terrible disease swept away the Indians 
of eastern Massachusetts, just before the Pilgrim Fathers 
settled on those shores. Second, a series of miracles, com- 
mencing in Egypt, marked the career of the Israelites 
until they finally were established in the land of Canaan. 
All the elements seemed in league with them; the Red 
Sea opened; they found sustenance in the desert; the 
waters of Jordan divided; the ramparts of Jericho fell; 

* Exod. xxiii. 28. Deut. vii. 20, Josh. xxiv. 12. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 63 

the stars in their courses fought against the enemies of 
God; and finally the work of destruction was completed 
by the Israelites themselves, who were instructed to exe- 
cute punishment upon the Midianites and Canaanites, that 
they might teach the nations how God abhorred impurity, 
and also thus learn for themselves a lesson of obedience 
to the divine counsels, and of abstinence from the sins 
which they were bidden to punish in others.* 

Severe as were the judgments inflicted in the Mosaic 
dispensation upon those who transgressed the laws of 
purity, and thus sapped the foundations of individual and 
national existence, yet the Mosaic law as a rule inclined 
to mercy, and provided important safeguards to protect 
those accused of wrong-doing, and thus secure to every 
one a fair trial and a legal acquittal, or a just punishment. 
One of these provisions was the establishment of 

THE CITIES OF REFUGE. 

The six Cities of Refuge, three of which were located 
on each side of the Jordan, illustrate the merciful char- 
acter of Moses' law. The customs of that country, then 
as now, imperatively required the nearest living relative 
of a man who had been killed, to avenge his death. No 
time was allowed for investigation, trial, or defense. 
Hence a man guilty of manslaughter or accidental homi- 
cide was liable to receive the same penalty that was in- 
flicted upon a deliberate murderer. The law of Moses 
required that whenever a man had slain his fellow, he 
should at once flee for his life to the nearest City of Ref- 
uge, which was easy of access. 

Broad, straight roads led to those cities ; and they were 
inhabited by priests and Levites, who were familiar with 
the law of Moses, and whose business it was to protect the 

*For additional facts and arguments concerning the destruction of the nations of 
Canaan, consult The Great Controversy between God and Man, by H. L. Hastings. 
pp. 45-52, 



64 THE WOXDEKFUL LAW. 

refugee from private vengeance or mob violence, until he 
could have a fair trial. If it was proven that he was 
guilty of deliberate murder, he was then delivered over to 
death; but if he was not proven guilty of murder, he was 
exempt from death, but was to remain within the walls of 
the City of Refuge until the death of the Jewish high 
priest, after which he was at liberty to go his way in se- 
curity. 

While this law did not prohibit the avenging of blood 
by private hands, in accordance with all the customs and 
traditions of the times, it so modified the usage as to 
secure to every man a fair and impartial trial, substantial 
justice, and protection from undeserved punishment. 

DID THE LAW OP MOSES SANCTION SLAVERY? 

Infidels bitterly complain that the law of Moses or- 
dained and sanctioned slavery; asserting that no such law 
could be of divine origin. This charge is another instance 
of the unfairness of skeptical statements concerning sim- 
ple facts within the reach of all; and it also illustrates 
the ignorance of infidels concerning the plain teachings 
of the Holy Scriptures. Neither slaves nor slavery are 
mentioned in the books of Moses. We know but two 
passages where the word slave occurs in the Bible. Jer. 
ii. 14, and Rev. xviii. 13. And in Jeremiah ii. 14, the 
word slave is a supplied word, not found in the original. 
The Hebrew word eved which is translated servant nearly 
'ZOO times, is never rendered slave. It is applied to David, 
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, Elijah, Isaiah, Ben-hadad, 
the king of Babylon, Zerubbabel, and in several instances 
to the Messiah himself. A strange word to describe what 
we call slavery! 

In fact, we see that slavery was not mentioned in the He- 
brew Scriptures, and was impracticable on any extended 
scale, under the Jewish system. The children of Israel 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 65 

had no vast estates. They were not allowed to join field 
to field. They could neither buy nor sell lands; they 
could only lease them until the year of jubilee. Even 
King Ahab could only obtain the inheritance of a neigh- 
bor for a garden by murdering the owner and con- 
fiscating his property. The Israelites had no extensive 
manufactories or mines; no cotton fields, rice swamps, 
or sugar plantations. They lived simply, and supported 
themselves on their little plots of ground. And as who- 
ever had servants was bound to support them and their 
families, the establishment of slavery on any extended 
scale was utterly impracticable in the land of Israel. 
What could an Israelite have done on his little twenty-acre 
farm, with the ten thousand slaves of an ancient Roman ? 
It is true that Abraham had a large number of servants, 
but they were no more slaves than the members of a 
tribe or clan are slaves. He was head or sheik of his 
tribe, and they were his followers. He lived a wander- 
ing life, with his flocks and herds, and was surrounded by 
a throng of dependants. But this was long before the 
law was given by Moses; and under that law even this 
arrangement was impracticable. 

SLAVERY IN GREECE AND ROME. 

Human slavery was a well-known, ancient, and almost 
universal institution. Before Christianity had subdued 
the passions and ameliorated the animosities of men and 
nations, every nation looked upon every other nation as 
their natural enemies, and treated them accordingly; im- 
prisoning, enslaving, or killing them if found on their 
territory. When Avars broke out, the cry was, " Woe to 
the vanquished;" and men were slaughtered without 
mercy, or if spared were condemned to bitter bondage, 
and employed by the conquerors in the most laborious 
and degrading occupations, till they sunk beneath the toil. 



66 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

The erection of the Roman Coliseum is said to have been 
the work of twelve thousand captive Jews. The Grecian 
states countenanced piracy as a public benefit, because of 
the large number of captives they were thus enabled to 
enslave. In Greece slaves were lashed, mutilated, tor- 
tured, branded and slain, without justice or mercy. In 
Attica, a state smaller than Rhode Island, at one time 
there were estimated to be of citizens and aliens 124,000 or 
less, and 400,000 slaves. Gibbon reckons the population of 
the Roman empire under Claudius at one hundred and 
twenty millions, half of whom were slaves. Mommsen 
places the population of Rome at 1,610,000, of whom 
900,000, or more than half, were slaves. Aristotle tells us 
that the island of iEgina, containing forty-two square 
miles, with outlying dependencies, had 470,000 slaves. 
Corinth had 460,000 slaves; and Delos, an opulent seat 
of trade, could in a single day receive and send away 
10,000 slaves. 

In Greece, personal beauty in a slave was punishable 
with death. Every slave received annually a certain 
number of lashes to remind him that he was a slave. Xo 
master could free a slave even if he desired to. Slaves 
were compelled to drink themselves drunk, and thus ex- 
hibit to the Spartans an example of what intoxication 
was. Under the laws of Lycurgus, every year the bold- 
est and brightest Grecian youth were fed high to make 
them ferocious, armed with daggers, and equipped with 
several days' provisions, and sent on an expedition to the 
fields, where they were to hide by day, and sally out at 
night and butcher all the slaves they met. 

Among the captured slaves of those times were mechan- 
ics, poets, linguists, and men of every grade and class. 
Crassus owned more than five hundred architects and 
masons. Plato himself, offending Dionysius, the tyrant 
of Sicily, by his plain speaking, was handed over to the 



THE WONDEKFUL LAW. 67 

Spartan embassador, Pollis, and exposed for sale in the 
slave market in iEgina, and only escaped by being re- 
deemed by a friend. Human life was cheap then. In 
the time of Demosthenes a good slave cost about thirty 
dollars, or half the price of a good horse. In Rome, just 
before the birth of Christ, a slave was worth ninety dol- 
lars; but after battles had been fought, captives could 
be purchased for a trifle. In the camp of Lucullus in 
Pontus, men could be bought for less than eighty cents. 

Thus according to the laws and customs of the mighti- 
est and most polished nations of antiquity, any man 
could be kidnapped, captured, and sold into bondage, 
being absolutely under his master's power; his servitude 
being perpetual, and descending to his children. Under 
the Roman law a man could kill his slave as he would 
kill a dog. One Roman nobleman used to cut up such of 
his slaves as broke dishes, and feed them to the lampreys 
in his pond. The slave had no protection whatever 
against his master's avarice, anger, or lust. He was viewed 
as an inferior animal, and might be scourged, tortured, 
mutilated or killed at pleasure. Marriage was unknown 
among slaves. The master could break up their families, 
and permanently separate them at will. He could force 
women to become prostitutes, and degrade men to still 
baser uses. He could compel them to become gladia- 
tors, and train them to fight with each other or with wild 
beasts, until they were killed. He could turn them out 
in sickness or old age, abandoning them to starvation. 
If the master was killed in his house, all the slaves could 
be put to death. Tacitus {Annals, xii. 42) tells us of a 
slave who in his rage killed his master, who had prom- 
ised him freedom and had broken his word. The case 
was discussed in the senate. Cassius, the Stoic, defended 
the law, and six hundred slaves, all innocent, were mur- 
dered by order of the Roman senate. This was slavery, 



68 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

an institution as foreign to the Israelitish policy as candor 
is to the character of some who assail the law of Moses 
as an instrument of bondage and oppression. 

THE PUNISHMENT FOR MANSTEALING. 

Slavery had its foundation in violence and kidnapping; 
but the law of Moses said, "He that stealeth a man and 
selleth him, or if he he found in his hand, he shall surely 
be put to death." Exod xxi. 16. The law of Moses made 
the stealing of a man, selling him, or holding the man 
thus stolen in bondage, a capital crime. Again it is said, 
" If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the 
children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or 
selleth him, then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put 
evil away from among you." Dent. xxiv. 7. Under the 
law of Moses no theft of property was punishable with 
death. Such crimes were punished by enforcing restitu- 
tion, in some cases twofold, in others four or fivefold; 
and in cases of poverty, by compelling the thief to work 
as a bondman, and repay the value of the things stolen. 
Exod. xxii. 3, 9, 12. But when a man was stolen, the 
penalty was death; and the stealing or selling of a man 
was thus punishable, and no mercy was allowed. 

Hence slavery, properly so called, was unknown, and 
the word slave does not occur in the writings of Moses. 
In some cases bondmen and bondmaids were purchased 
of the heathen round about, and of the children of stran- 
gers, and these were brought unto a condition of perma- 
nent servitude. Lev. xxv. 44, 45. But these persons 
were already enslaved and degraded, and the change 
must have been most welcome to them. And there is a 
question whether this servitude extended beyond the year 
of jubilee. These servants were to be circumcised, and 
participate in the passover feast (Exod. vii. 44), and in 
other religious festivities. Deut. xii. 12-18; xvi. 21-24. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 69 

They enjoyed the weekly rest days, which were binding 
upon all who dwelt in the land. We find only two in- 
stances of bondmen running away from their masters men- 
tioned in the Old Testament. 2 Sam. xxv. 20; 2 Kings ii. 
39. The wise servant had rule over the son which caused 
shame, and had part of the inheritance among the breth- 
ren (Prov. xvii. 2); and sometimes the servant married the 
daughter of the master. 2 Chron. ii. 35. 

The Jews, it is true, were sometimes compelled to en- 
gage in wars. They were assailed, and must defend 
themselves; and sometimes they were made the instru- 
ments of chastisement to the corrupt and besotted nations 
around them. In time of war, they, like other nations? 
took captives. What should be done with them ? They 
did not wish to slaughter or mutilate them, as most of 
the neighboring nations did: if they set them free they 
would only return to swell the ranks of their enemies, 
and perhaps join in another invasion of their land. 
Hence, the only practicable way was to place them under 
restraint as bondmen. Their condition, however, was in 
a vast majority of instances better than in their own 
land. Captive women were protected from insult and 
outrage. If servants became dissatisfied with their mas- 
ters and ran away, no Israelite was allowed to return 
them. The law said: "Thou shalt not deliver unto 
his master the servant which is escaped from his mas- 
ter unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among 
you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy 
gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress 
him." Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. This was the "Fugitive 
Slave Law " in the time of Moses. Have moderns greatly 
improved upon it ? 

There were also servants "born in the house;" probably 
the children of captives taken in war. These were mem- 
bers of the family, and sometimes had charge of the 



70 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

affairs of the household, as in the case of Abraham's stew- 
ard, Eliezer of Damascus (Gen. xxv. 13); and at other 
times they were regarded as sons, or united by marriage 
to the children and heirs of the household. 

We also read in the Scriptures of servants bought with 
money; but since the selling of their brethren was pun- 
ishable with death, how could slaves be bought with 
money ? They must have been persons bought out of for- 
eign slavery, or else persons who, being reduced to poverty, 
sold themselves. Thus it is written, " Ye have sold your- 
selves for nought." Isa. Hi. 3. In Leviticus (xxv. 39-47) 
we read, "If thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and 
sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve 
as a bond-servant. If a sojourner or stranger wax rich by 
thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor and 
sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, . . . 
after that he is sold he may be redeemed again." Thus 
servants were bought with money, that is, hired for a cer- 
tain period or term of years. A man might mortgage his 
property, and might be still unable to support his family. 
He might then sell himself as a servant; but no one else 
could sell him. He was not a beast, to be maltreated and 
slain; nor was he a chattel, to be sold, bartered, or passed 
from hand to hand. He was a man, and had his rights. He 
owed service to one man, who could not transfer his claim 
to any one else. He could not be sent out of the country. 
He might be called for and redeemed at any time, by any 
friend, by the payment of a price, fixed, not by the caprice 
of his master, but by computation of the amount paid for 
him, and the length of his term of service yet unexpired. 
At the close of the sixth year his servitude expired by 
limitation, or on the jubilee year, if that occurred before 
the sixth year closed. 

Such a man was not a slave. He was a bondman, like 
many a lad who has been " bound out" till he was of age; 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 71 

or like emigrants, bound to work till their passage-money 
was repaid; but such bondage was in no sense slavery. 

Another cause of servitude was, if a man committed a 
theft he was to restore fourfold or fivefold; and if he 
had nothing, then he was to be sold for his theft. Ex. 
xxii. 3. He must work out the amount which the law 
required him to pay. But he could not be sold to a for- 
eigner or carried abroad. (Josephus, Antiquities^ b. xvi. 
c. 1, § 1.) He must be where he could be delivered up 
if called for, or redeemed. 

A man might also sell his daughter as a maid-servant 
with the understanding that she was to be betrothed to 
the purchaser or to his son; but if he took another wife, 
and did not fulfill all his obligations to her, she was at 
Once to go free. 

The father's power to dispose of a daughter was not 
like the power of the ancient Romans, where parents had 
the right to put their children to death at pleasure; and 
the fact that the father sold his daughter did not make 
her the property of the buyer. Boaz bought Ruth. Ruth 
iv. 10. Jacob bought his wives with years of labor. Gen. 
xxix. 16-23. And the purchase of wives was the general 
practice in those times. Ex. xxii. 17; 1 Sam. xviii. 25. 
But such purchases did not involve the idea of slavery 
or of mere proprietary right. It was the marriage cus- 
tom of those times. 

THE PROTECTION OF SERVANTS FROM ABUSE. 

If a man smote his servant with a rod — not with a stone 
or a weapon, but simply with an instrument of correction 
— if he killed him, he was to be punished. If death did 
not occur immediately, it was then adjudged that the 
injury might have been unintentional, or accidental, or 
might have resulted from other causes; and that loss of 
the bondman's services was a sufficient punishment to the 



12 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

master for the chastisement he had inflicted on his servant. 
The master was not exempted from punishment because 
the injured person was his servant, or his money, for if he 
died under his hand he was to be punished for his death, 
servant though he was; but in case of his lingering along, 
an element of doubt entered into the case, and the 
accused had the benefit of the doubt. It was presumed 
that a man would not intentionally deprive himself of 
the money he had paid to secure the services of a bond- 
man for a term of years; and every Israelite knew that 
any serious injury which he might inflict on a servant re- 
leased him from all obligations of further service. 

The servant who was maimed or injured under the cor- 
rection of his master, thereby became entitled to his free- 
dom. If in chastising a servant the master knocked out 
a tooth or destroyed an eye, the servant was entitled to 
liberty as a compensation for the injury done. Ex. xxi. 
26, 27. The natural tendency of such a law as this was 
to prevent harsh treatment by masters, and to make it 
for their own interest to treat their servants with the 
utmost gentleness. 

The servitude of any Israelite might be terminated at 
any time by satisfying the claims against him. When 
the balance of the debt due was paid, the man was lib- 
erated or redeemed. When the thief had worked out his 
time, he was free; or the year of jubilee might occur 
within the time, as then the law gave all servants lib- 
erty. Lev. xxv. 40. Or at the expiration of six years 
from the commencement of his servitude the servant 
went free. Ex. xxi. 2; Deut. xv. 12. The death of the 
master without leaving a male heir was held by the 
Rabbins to liberate the servants. And at the termin- 
ation of his servitude the master was not allowed to let 
the servant go away empty, but to liberally reward 
him out of his field, and his threshing-floor, and his 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 73 

wine-press. Deut. xv. 13, 14. This provision of a reward, 
the amount of which was left discretionary with the mas- 
ter, would stimulate the bondman to faithful service, 
that he might at the expiration of his term have some- 
thing to start in the world anew. 

If a servant, contented with his lot, refused to go away, 
then he was to go before judges, and there by a formal 
ceremony (Ex. xxi. 6; Deut. xv. 17) bind himself as a 
permanent servant. He was then to remain in the house 
forever, — though some of the Jews assert that this bond 
only extended to the year of jubilee, the fiftieth year. 
But whatever his condition he never became a chattel or 
a thing. While ancient slavery denied to its subjects the 
rights of manhood, under the law of Moses the servant 
was a honHman and possessed the rights and privileges of 
a human being. 

THE WIVES OF SEEVAXTS. 

Great objection has been made to the provision that if 
a master gave a wife to a servant, when his time of serv- 
itude expired the wife and children were to remain the 
property of the master. To understand this provision, 
we must note that the female servants thus spoken of 
were doubtless persons who had been taken captive in 
war, or their children who had been brought up in the 
family of the master. Thus he had certain claims upon 
them. It was the custom of those days for men to 
purchase their wives with money or labor, and of course 
the servant having rendered no such service, could not be 
entitled to claim or remove the wife which he had taken 
in the house of his master, without making such conden- 
sation for services as immemorial custom required. Of 
course he was well aware of this when he contracted such 
a marriage. He, moreover, had the right to remain in 
the house with his wife and family; and if he departed, 



74 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

it does not appear that she ceased to be his wife. She 
could not be sold to another. She was provided for in 
his absence or in his presence, not being dependent on 
him for support; and if he went away he knew where to 
find her when he returned, unless she had been set free. 
Families could not there be separated or torn asunder. 
But while he was free to go as he pleased, she was re- 
garded as owing service to that household until such 
time as their claims should be canceled. The mere fact 
of her marriage to a fellow-servant did not liberate her 
from the obligations she was under to her master's family. 

A captive woman who had been taken as a wife by an 
Israelite could not again be reduced to servitude. If she 
was discarded, she must be set free. A servant might 
be elevated to the position of a wife, but a wife could 
not be degraded to the position of a servant. 

Such, in brief, are some of the provisions of the Jew- 
ish law concerning servitude. As it regards slavery, it 
was unknown in the land of Israel, though well known 
among outside nations, both in ancient and modern times. 
And the charges that infidels make against the law of 
Moses as countenancing slavery, clearly indicate that ig- 
norance of the Scriptures which is so characteristic of 
skeptics as a class, or that indifference to accuracy of 
statement concerning matters of fact which seems to be 
an indispensable qualification for skeptical teachers. 

A PRACTICABLE LAW. 

One noteworthy feature of the Mosaic law was its 
practicability. The wise legislator considers that he is 
not making laws for an ideal society. If men were all 
righteous and would always do right, laws would be need- 
less. Laws are made because, through ignorance and per- 
versity, people will do wrong and will go astray. But 
laws, to be useful in a community, must be of such a 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 75 

nature that they can be enforced. When the people of 
Athens, through factions and intestine broils, were on the 
brink of ruin, they appealed to Draco to frame a new 
code of laws for them. His laws were chiefly remarka- 
ble for the rigor of their penalties. Every violation of 
them was punishable with death; a severity which ren- 
dered them incapable of execution; as when under Eng- 
lish laws capital crimes were numbered by hundreds, it 
was impossible to enforce them. Witnesses would not 
testify, jurors would not convict, and though in the four 
years from 1828 to 1832 there were 3786 convictions, there 
were only 66 executions. 

Laws which cannot be executed are worse than useless. 
After the failure of Draco's laws, Solon was summoned 
to take the helm and save the sinking ship of state. He 
introduced a constitution which he said " was not the 
best in itself, but the best that the Athenians would 
bear." Rousseau, the skeptic, in his treatise on the 
Social Compact (b. ii. c. 8-11) says, "The prudent legis- 
lator does not begin by making a digest of salutary laws ; 
but examines first whether the people for whom such laws 
are designed are capable of supporting them. It was 
for this reason that Plato refused to give laws to the Arca- 
dians and Cyrenians, knowing that they were rich and 
luxurious, and could not admit of the introduction of 
equality among them. When customs are once estab- 
lished, and prejudices have taken root among the people, 
it is a dangerous and fruitless enterprise to attempt to 
reform them. Legislation should be variously modified 
in different countries. . . . Every people should have a 
particular system of law, not always the best in itself, but 
the best adapted for the state for which it is calculated." 
"The secret of great statesmanship," says Mebuhr, "is 
a gradual development and improvement of the several 
parts to an equal constitution." Wise legislators never 



76 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

attempt to raise a constitution at once to perfection. 
Nations are for the most part very tenacious of their 
customs, and very apt to rebel against violent innova- 
tions. Wise statesmen, therefore, says Montesquieu, do 
not change them suddenly, but let the people make the 
changes themselves. No really wise legislator will make 
laws which shock the general sense of a nation. 

Many regulations which might be exceedingly desira- 
ble, even in civilized communities, are impracticable be- 
cause they cannot be enforced. Entire abstinence from 
all intoxicating beverages would be desirable; but a law 
requiring this would probably be useless, because it could 
not be executed. Hence moral means must largely be 
depended on to restrain and reform mankind. Law 
does not mark the highest level desired in human con- 
duct. It simply marks the lowest level which will be toler- 
ated by the community or the lawgiver. Though the law 
does not forbid a man to become intoxicated, yet in the 
interest of public order and morality it forbids public in- 
toxication. This does not imply any approval or permis- 
sion of private intoxication; but simply that the law does 
not undertake the impossible task of regulating the pri- 
vate acts of individuals which do not conflict with public 
order. Many evils are dealt with in the same manner, 
and wise legislators often seek to restrain and regulate 
wrongs which they cannot at once remove. 

POLYGAMY AND DIVORCE. 

An example of this is found in the Mosaic law regu- 
lating polygamy. The Mosaic law did not ordain, com- 
mand, or commend the practice. It confined itself to 
regulating an old, established, and widely extended in- 
stitution. To have attempted to uproot it would have 
seriously disturbed the existing social order. It would have 
broken up families, cast off wives, disinherited children, 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 77 

and might have been attended with great dangers and 
serious evils. Hence, instead of cutting down the tree, 
the Mosaic law girdled it. 

First, the kings of Israel were forbidden to multiply 
wives unto themselves.* The course of David and Solo- 
mon in this respect, though in accord with Eastern usage, 
was in direct opposition to the law under which they held 
the throne. Besides, no person was permitted to take a 
second wife to the neglect or exclusion of the first. \ A 
man was not allowed to take wife after wife, neglecting 
the first because he had found another younger and fairer. 
The full rights and privileges of the wife first taken 
were solemnly guaranteed to her in every particular. 
The tendency of this provision was evidently to restrain 
and discourage such unions, and so far as possible to 
limit the evil of polygamy. It was only under the pres- 
sure of the most terrible calamities, when the men of 
Judah were slain by the sword, and the gates of Jerusa- 
lem were desolate, that seven women were to seek alliance 
with one man, to remove the reproach attached to celi- 
bacy. Isa. hi. 25; iv. 1. The Law of Moses not only 
provided every man a farm, but its provisions, which 
tended to increase the male population, as a rule provided 
for every woman a husband, thus honoring marriage and 
restraining vice and immorality. 

Another example is found in the Mosaic provision for 
divorce. The Saviour distinctly says that Moses on ac- 
count of the hardness of their hearts suffered them to 
put away their wives, but from the beginning it was not 
so. The law was not in accordance with the highest prin- 
ciples, nor was it a regulation of an ideal society. It was 
simply on account of the hardness of their hearts. The 
law was graded on the lines of possibility and practica- 
bility. The question was not what would be a perfect 

* Deut. xvii. 17. f Exodus xxi. 10. 



78 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

law for a perfect people; for in a state of absolute per- 
fection no law would be needed. The question was not 
what was the best law that could be made for angels and 
saints in heaven, or for Adam and Eve in paradise; but 
what was the best law that could be imposed upon a na- 
tion of sinners, fresh from the bondage of Egypt, in the 
desert of Sinai and in the land of Canaan. In the be- 
ginning God created one man and one woman. This was 
the primary and perfect order. But it was an order 
which it might have been impossible to revive at the 
time when the Mosaic law was given. 

There have been countries in Christendom which ut- 
terly prohibit divorce. But it is by no means certain that 
their laws operate to secure the well being and morality 
of the people; and it is reasonably sure that such a law 
in the time of Moses would have failed to accomplish the 
end desired. Indeed, it has been found in modern times 
that after the enlightenment of successive generations it 
is by no means easy to eradicate an evil like polygamy, 
with all the machinery of law and government, armies 
and navies at hand, — to say nothing of schools, missions, 
and educational appliances. 

The fact that the law given by Moses was a practicable 
law, not attempting impossibilities, but confining its en- 
actments within the bounds where its authority could be 
exercised, is another instance of the divine wisdom em- 
bodied in that law. 

THE POSITION OP WOMEN AMONG THE HEBREWS. 

It is well known that under ordinary circumstances, 
about one hundred and five male children are born to 
every one hundred female children. This excess of births 
seems intended to compensate for the greater number of 
deaths which occur among the males in consequence of 
the special dangers to which they are exposed. The 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 79 

number of deaths among males is unquestionably in- 
creased by the use of intoxicants and narcotics, and va- 
rious other excesses, which increase may be balanced in 
civilized communities by the greater mortality of women 
induced by unhealthful ways of living, dress, and occu- 
pation. But the disposition of men to incur risks, 
travel, explore, and colonize, still leaves a deficiency of 
men in old and long-settled communities. In Great Brit- 
ain there are over nine hundred thousand more women 
than men; and the world has been horrified by accounts 
of a hellish traffic in female innocence there carried on, 
which could not be expected to occur were the sexes 
more evenly balanced. In the State of Massachusetts 
there are sixty-two thousand more women than men, and 
in the city of Boston women number seventeen thousand 
more than men. The presence of such an excess of 
female population is not only an occasion of great incon- 
venience and suffering among the helpless, but is also 
fraught with positive danger to the morals and well-being 
of the community. 

It is a curious fact that under the operation of certain 
of the Mosaic interdictions yet to be mentioned, which 
infidels scoff at because they cannot comprehend their 
utility, the proportion of the average birth-rate is materi- 
ally changed; so that instead of the one hundred and Jive 
males born to every one hundred females among the Gen- 
tiles, there are among the Jews one hundred and tioelve 
males born to every one hundred females. This peculiar- 
ity of birth-rate, of course, affords to the Jews great 
advantage in point of national strength and increase. 

It has often been remarked that the Jewish religion 
was much more readily embraced by women than by 
men. The painful initiatory rite stood directly in the way 
of every male proselyte to Judaism. On the other hand, 
the positive advantages offered women under the Jewish 



80 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

law were such as must have been highly esteemed. The 
position of women in the heathen world was, and ever 
has been, a position of the most abject degradation im- 
aginable. To-day, India has within her borders 124,000,- 
000 women, "unwelcome at their birth, accursed as wid- 
ows, unlamented when they die; and this with all 'the 
light of Asia' surrounding them." 

The position of women among the Jews was far differ- 
ent. As a maiden, she was protected and defended by 
Jewish law, and he who betrayed her was obliged to 
marry her, if she consented, and without the possibility 
of a future divorce. The rights of the Jewish wife were 
carefully guarded. Her husband was not allowed to go 
to war for a year after they were married; and though 
the eastern institution of polygamy was not utterly pro- 
hibited, yet it was so restricted that it must not in any 
way invade the rights and privileges of the wife. If a 
husband became jealous of his wife's fidelity, the legal 
presumptions were all in her favor. The husband was 
not allowed to inflict summary punishment ; but she was 
subjected to an ordeal which could by no possibility work 
injury to her, unless through the guilt of her own con- 
science or the interposition of divine providence. Num. 
v. As a mother, the Jewish woman must be honored by 
her children. As a daughter, the Jewish woman had rights 
and an inheritance. If the wif e or daughter uttered rash 
and foolish vows, the husband or father had a right to dis- 
annul them, provided he did it from the day it came to his 
knowledge. Even the Gentile woman taken captive by 
a young Israelitish warrior must have been surprised to 
receive treatment so strangely different from that received 
by captives in her OAvn country, or even among modern 
nations who profess to be civilized. Her captor could not 
offer her an insult; she must be taken, not to a prison, 
but to his home, where she must neither be abused nor 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 81 

outraged, but treated with patient consideration; and she 
could not be taken, even as a wife, until a full month had 
elapsed, during which he might secure her affections or 
reconsider his determination. And if after her marriage 
she was discontented and made herself disagreeable, she 
could never again be held as a servant, but must be al- 
lowed to go free. Widows, who in heathen lands have 
been degraded and sometimes murdered or burned, 
were to be treated with the utmost tenderness. They 
shared in the tithes, and were admitted to the public 
festivities. They had a right to glean in the fields and 
gather up the forgotten sheaves, to gather which the owner 
was not allowed to go back. Injustice against widows 
was treated with fearful punishment. " Thou shalt not 
take the widow's raiment to pledge" (Deut. xxiv. 17), 
was a benevolent law which cannot be paralleled in any 
modern code. The command to lend to an Israelite in 
his poverty was imperative, but no pledge of raiment 
could be exacted from a loidow. 

Thus in a variety of ways was the Lord pleased to man- 
ifest his kindness and compassion for the fatherless and 
the widow, and in consequence womanhood was honored 
and honorable in the Jewish nation, beyond anything 
known in the heathen world. From the vile and degrad- 
ing orgies of heathenism the women of Israel were 
exempt. They feared the Lord, and at his hand received 
blessings and mercies without number. Some of them 
were prophets, teachers, leaders, and judges. They taught 
a pure morality, trained their children according to prin- 
ciples of justice and righteousness, and lived in expecta- 
tion and hope of the coming of that Messiah in whom 
all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. 

These privileges enjoyed by Israelitish women, so much 
superior to those accorded to women in the surrounding 
nations, must have inclined many to desire the protection 



82 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

and security afforded in the commonwealth of Israel. 
Thus Ruth, having married one Israelitish husband, had 
no desire to remain in Moab and look for his successor, 
but said to her mother-in-law, who was returning to the 
land of Israel, "Whither thou goest, I will go. Thy peo- 
ple shall be my people, and thy God my God." Doubtless 
others were equally sensible of the advantages of such 
unions, and hence it was comparatively easy for Jewish 
men to obtain wives to supply any deficiency that might 
have existed. Heathen women were all too willing to 
form such alliances, and the Jews were especially warned 
against intermarrying with the surrounding nations; for 
though Jewish men formed the controlling element of the 
nation, yet heathen women, if they did not embrace the 
faith of Israel, were an occasion of spiritual decline and 
apostasy, and especially of idolatry in their children. 

MOSAIC INTERDICTIONS. 

The prohibitions or interdictions of the Mosaic law 
have been a favorite butt for the ridicule of infidels, 
whose blundering criticisms clearly indicate their failure 
to comprehend the depths of wisdom exhibited in the 
oracles of God. 

Various restrictions are common to all governments. 
The existence of society depends upon mutual concessions 
and the curtailment of individual rights. The law of brute 
force is simple barbarism, and with its establishment 
civilization ends. 

Under the Jewish law there are three expressions 
which require consideration in this connection. There 
was first kah-dohsh', signifying to be bright, new, fresh, 
untarnished, clean, consecrated, set apart for a holy use. 
This word described the ideal sanctity or holiness of the 
Israelitish nation, and of their worship. The temple and 
altar, the curtains of the tabernacle, the sacrifices and 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 83 

skew-bread, the golden lampstand, and all their utensils 
of worship, were regarded as kdh-dohsh' ', or holy. Not that 
any moral quality could inhere in gold and silver, brass, 
cloth, or stone, but simply to show that those material 
things were consecrated to the service of the Most High, 
and were to be looked upon with reverence, and to be 
kept sacred from the touch of the common multitude. 
This word also extended higher in its scope, and described 
angelic puritv, and the spotless holiness of the Most High 
God. 

Another word used among them was tdh-meh', which 
signified to be soiled, sullied, polluted, defiled, unholy, 
unclean. As kdh-dohsh' defined that holiness or purity to 
which a man should attain to enjoy communion with 
God, tah-meh' described that pollution, defilement, or un- 
cleanness which he was required to avoid. Those words, 
therefore, set a bound about the nation of Israel, to pre- 
vent their participation in the vices of the surrounding 
peoples, separating them from the corrupt and idolatrous 
nations around them, in food, in drink, and in association. 
They might not attend their idolatrous festivities, sit at 
their tables, nor eat of their dainties. 

While whatever was thus interdicted was termed tah- 
meh' or unclean, the word tdh-hehr', signifying to shine, 
to be bright, to become clean or pure, was used to de- 
scribe the condition of those whose ceremonial unclean- 
ness had been removed by compliance with the prescrip- 
tions of the Mosaic law. This word therefore occupied 
a middle position; kdh-dohsh' describing the divine holi- 
ness, tdh-meh' expressing the depths of human pollution, 
and tdh-hehr' describing the condition of those who hav- 
ing been polluted had been cleansed and restored to a 
condition of purity. 

We have in this connection especially to consider the 
force of the term tdh-meh', or tmcleanness, which was 



84 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

used, not necessarily to describe that which was filthy, 
but that which was prohibited or forbidden. Thus the 
touch of a dead body made any person tah-meh' , or un- 
clean; not because material filth necessarily adhered to a 
person who had touched a corpse, but to broadly mark 
the distinction between the living and the dead, and to 
remind men that by sin came death, and also to ensure 
the speedy removal and interment of the dead, and 
to prevent that contact with them which so often proves 
a fruitful source of contagion, disease and death. 

An illustration of the force of the term tdh-meh' may 
be found in the taboo of the Polynesians, by which a certain 
mark or sign affixed to anything renders it taboo, and pro- 
hibits all people from touching or approaching it. 

This ceremonial tah-meh', or prohibitory restriction, 
usually translated " unclean," touched the personal life 
and conduct of the Israelite at every point, extending its 
control over his entire existence from birth to burial, 
regulating his food, his clothing, his daily conduct, and 
his most secret acts of social and domestic life. He who 
violated any of these interdictions, himself became tah- 
meh', or unclean, and was forbidden under pain of death 
to enter the congregation of the Lord, take part in the 
worship, festivities, or privileges of the children of Israel. 
While he was tah-meh' he was required to make himself 
a social outcast, being obliged to decline all association 
or contact with his fellow-men, at least for a day, and 
sometimes for a week or more. He was also required to 
bathe himself in water, and to perform certain public 
ceremonies of purification before he could become tah- 
hehr,' and thus regain his ordinary rights and privileges. 

If we study these laws, beginning with the eleventh 
chapter of Leviticus and continuing to the fifteenth, we 
shall find in them indications of wisdom and evidences of 
utility which skeptics little suspect. The laws which 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 85 

pronounced a leper tdh-meh' were of the nature of quar- 
antine restrictions, framed in accordance with the character 
of that terrible malady, to prevent its spread among the 
people. The law concerning the "leprosy of the house" 
contained sanitary regulations which, if enforced today, 
would demolish the mouldy and pestilential rookeries in 
which civilization hives her poor, and would inaugurate a 
system of sanitary inspection and improvement such as a 
modern enlightenment has never yet succeeded in estab- 
lishing. The numerous ablutions required of those 
who were tah-meh' enforced the practice of cleanliness 
as a religious duty, thus conserving and promoting the 
health of the nation. The directions regarding clothing 
are also well worthy of attention, some of them probably 
being based on sanitary considerations, and others per- 
haps being intended to guard against the usages of 
idolatrous nations. 

THE LAWS OP MOSES REGARDING FOOD 

have been to a great extent substantially adopted among 
civilized peoples, most of the prohibited articles being ex- 
cluded from their dietary, and the few that are still used 
might be most advantageously dispensed with. 

Perhaps the most marked deviation of civilized nations 
from the Jewish dietetic code is seen in the prevailing 
use of swine's flesh, which was strictly forbidden to 
Israel. The propriety of this interdiction is obvious to the 
thoughtful. Swine in their natural condition are fierce as 
beasts of prey, and about as swift as wild horses, and 
though omnivorous, and hence unclean, may be supposed 
to be comparatively free from disease. But when civil- 
ized and fattened they become so weak and enfeebled 
that they can hardly move, but lie as helpless lumps of 
lymph and adipose; and when they are too feeble to walk 
and can only grunt and eat, they are supposed to be just 



86 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

fit for food. The lumps which characterize what is known 
as "measly pork" it is now known when eaten develop 
into tape-worms in the human body; and the horrors of 
trichiniasis are too well known to need description. An 
intelligent lady, a teacher in the public schools, who 
died of this horrible disease in consequence of tasting a 
single mouthful of uncooked sausage, said to the writer 
as she was panting for breath, after suffering untold 
agonies from the myriads of these horrible parasites which 
were working their way through every fibre of her body, 
" Warn the people not to eat pork/" 

The writer many years ago listened to a lecture on 
health, delivered by Dr. Wieting in Tremont Temple, 
Boston. To illustrate the process of respiration he intro- 
duced the lungs of a pig, and remarked that he had it 
slaughtered on purpose for the lecture; and that some- 
times he found it necessary to have as many as a dozen 
pigs killed before he could get a pair of sound lungs/ Is 
it any wonder that people fed on the flesh of these dis- 
eased, enfeebled, tuberculous, filthy brutes, should die of 
consumption through the "mysterious providence of God," 
who told his people thousands of years ago to let the un- 
clean stuff alone ? Levit. xi. 7 ; Deut. xiv. 8 ; Isaiah lxiv. 
5; lxvi. IV. 

Swine were designed to be scavengers, to eat up filth 
and abominations; but when they had done their work, it 
was not designed that men should turn around and eat 
the swine. If people partake of the nature of the food 
they consume, the eaters of blood becoming bloodthirsty, 
while those who live upon fruits and similar articles of 
food are more mild and peaceful, we can imagine what 
must be the character of persons the main portion of 
whose food is swine's flesh. 

Persons fond of such food will naturally call to mind 
some person of iron constitution, like one known to the 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 87 

writer, who claims to have eaten twenty or thirty hogs 
without evil result; but they will not stop to consider the 
children of such persons, most of whom die in early life 
and of diseases not usually fatal. The fact is, He who for- 
bade his people to eat swine's flesh, undoubtedly had good 
reasons for so doing, — reasons which probably concern 
both health and morals. 

The celibate communities known in America as Shakers, 
furnish an illustration of the result of a partial conformity 
to the Mosaic law in relation to diet. According to a 
health journal, the Berkshire Shakers were accustomed to 
eat pork until about the year 1850, when they discontin- 
ued the use of it, and since doing so their average asre at 
death has risen from less than sixty-four years to over 
sixty-eight years. It is stated that when they made use 
of pork as an article of food they lost several members of 
their various families from consumption every year. After 
abandoning the use of pork, they did not lose a single 
member from consumption for years, and have actually 
stamped out the disease from among them. 

A rabbi of one of the Jewish synagogues of New York 
in preaching recently, insisted that the Mosaic food laws 
had been proved to rest on a scientific foundation and 
were for the best interests of those following them. A 
fair illustration of this, he said, is seen in the fact that 
during the last seven years seventy-eight members of the 
congregation had been buried, of whom fifty-eight lived in 
obedience to the food laws, and their ages averaged sixty 
years. The remaining twenty, who did not so live, had 
an average life of only forty years. 

It is not claimed that Gentiles and Christians are bound 
by law to abstain from all things forbidden to the Jews. 
But when they learn that all these interdictions are 
profitable and healthful, it is for them to consider whether 
they can afford to do things to their own injury, when 



88 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

their impropriety and hurtf ulness have been clearly pointed 
out in the Mosaic Law. 

The salutary restrictions concerning food have undoubt- 
edly tended to promote health and longevity among the 
Jews. But it is especially in the relations of the sexes, and 
the control of the natural instincts, that the law concern- 
ing tah-meh! has perhaps its most important application. 

The first commandment ever given to man had reference 
to the perpetuation of the human race. This command 
was enforced by the implantation of natural instincts 
sufficiently strong to secure the object desired, but con- 
stituting an array of social forces so mighty as to require 
rigid control and careful guidance, lest they should wreck 
society, and bury humanity in its own ruins. The first of 
these restraints was imposed by the divine law ordaining 
marriage; an institution primitive in its origin and world- 
wide in its extent. But other restraints were requisite 
to prevent those excesses which, even within the bonds 
of wedlock, result in infirmity, disease, and premature de- 
cay, working the destruction of health, happiness, and 
even of life itself. 

The experience of ages has also shown that the uncon- 
trolled indulgence of the natural passions, and the unre- 
strained and unregulated increase of the human family, 
result in various evils, such as the deterioration of both 
parents and offspring, the neglect of infancy, and the 
prevalence of poverty, want, vice, and wretchedness; for 
which evils modern publicists, politicians, and legislators 
have hitherto vainly sought to provide a remedy. 

In laying the foundations for a new and ideal common- 
wealth, these dangers were not to be overlooked, but 
carefully considered and sedulously guarded against. 
But how was this to be accomplished ? It is useless to 
legislate directly against natural inclinations and appe- 
tites. Such laws could never be enforced. Hence, what- 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 89 

ever is done to effect the desired results must be done in- 
directly, and in such a way as to avoid the resistance 
which the human will continually offers to every invasion 
of personal liberty. Evils which cannot be directly leg- 
islated out of existence may sometimes be indirectly re- 
strained and prevented by wise and judicious enactments. 

LAWS AGAINST IMPURITY. 

The law of Moses guarded the purity of womanhood 
with its sternest sanctions. Outrages upon women 
were punished with death. The seducer of the Jewish 
maiden must marry her, if her parents would permit the 
marriage, and if not, must pay heavily for his misdeed; 
and while wives taken under other circumstances might 
be divorced, such a marriage was indissoluble. Adultery 
was punished by the death of both the guilty parties. 
Prostitution was a capital crime, and no illegitimate child 
could enter the congregation of the Lord, or be incorpor- 
ated in the commonwealth of Israel and possess the rights 
of a free citizen. 

But even these protections would be insufficient to pre- 
vent the evils to which we have alluded. To guard 
against these ills some plan must be devised which would 
indirectly touch and rigidly control man's personal con- 
duct in the most secret acts of social life. 

Among the measures which looked to this result may 
be mentioned the initiatory rite, the seal of the ancient 
covenant, which had a direct tendency to foster conti- 
nence, and prevent vicious indulgence. The dietary of the 
Jewish nation, both in the articles which it prescribed 
and those which it excluded, tended to the same result. 
And finally the statutes concerning tdh-meh' or unclean- 
ness, and purification, were admirably adapted to cover 
the entire ground. No one could give himself up to the 
excessive and habitual indulgence of animal passion 



90 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

without making himself for the time a social outcast, and 
debarring himself from the services of the sanctuary, and 
the associations of common life, as a person whose very- 
presence and touch was defilement, and who must per- 
form the prescribed ablutions and ceremonies before he 
could again stand as an equal among the sons of Israel. 
The weaknesses and diseases which naturally result from 
excessive sensual indulgence subjected him to similar 
disability, and brought his case under the constant notice 
of parents and priests, thus insuring a speedy remedy. 

In addition to this, the Mosaic law cast about the weak- 
er sex the most absolute protection imaginable. Nothing 
was left to chance, to will, to caprice, or passion. The 
stern law of God stood sentinel over the health, purity, 
and welfare of the wife, and preserved the sanctity of 
the home. For a large proportion of the time the Israelitish 
wife was tdh-meh\ or forbidden. That word hedged her 
about on every hand. All contact with her person, her 
clothing, her bed or her couch, rendered any man guilty 
of it tdh-meh 1 ', or unclean, and sent him into seclusion 
from one to seven days, compelling him to bathe his 
entire person before he could walk forth as a man among 
men, and participate in the worship, the festivities, and 
the privileges pertaining to Jewish citizenship. Exod. 
xix. 10-15; 1 Sam. xxi. 4, 5; Joel ii. 16; 1 Cor. vii. 5. 

This tdh-meh', or prohibition, was so timed that its inev- 
itable tendency was to lessen the number of births 
which would otherwise occur, and at the same time, accord- 
ing to the laws of the human constitution as discovered by 
modern research, it would secure "the survival of the 
fittest," the preservation of the most vigorous germs of 
human existence, thus tending to produce a people phys- 
ically superior to other nations who lived without such 
wholesome restraints. 

Thus the regulation of the social life of the Hebrew was 



THE WONDEKFUL LAW. 91 

not left to chance, passion, or blind and unreasoning im- 
pulse; but the lawlessness of human nature was met, 
not by the remonstrances of weakness and helplessness, 
but by the stem law of God, which like a naming sword 
turned every way to protect the defenseless, and guard 
the purity and integrity of the home. And as each indul- 
gence of the natural passions was followed by a period of 
tdh-meh', or seclusion, the inconvenience of which is man- 
ifest, the natural tendency of the law was to cultivate 
virtue, foster self-control, school the Jewish nation 
in continence and chastity, and insure the perpetuation 
of a healthful and virtuous population. 

Another thing has excited the anger and contempt of 
skeptics, namely, the provision by which the birth of a 
son rendered the mother tdh-meh' for a period of forty 
days. Skeptics descant solemnly upon the sacredness 
of motherhood, and deride these laws as unworthy of 
a divine lawgiver; but the finer instincts of woman- 
hood will at once perceive the utility of a provision which, 
for a period of forty days, secluded and sacredly protected 
mothers, shielding them from all approach, intrusion and 
contact, and so insuring and preserving that proverbial 
health of the Hebrew women, who as long ago as the 
time of Pharaoh, unlike the Egyptian women, were "live- 
ly," and able to protect their offspring from destruction. 
Such a provision as this could only have a most salutary 
effect upon a community, its tendency being to prevent 
an over-production of ill-born and sickly children, avoid 
the dangers of over-population, and preserve the strength 
and vigor of the mothers in Israel. 

But infidelity has found another theme for scoffing in 
the fact that after the birth of a female child the mother 
was tdh-meh' for eighty days, or twice as long as after 
the birth of a son. Such a law as this surely must be 
one of " the mistakes of Moses! " But it is not well for 



92 THE WONDEKFUL LAW. 

skeptics to form hasty conclusions. Perhaps Moses knew 
more about his business than skeptics do. 

There is, as it is well known, in consequence of the ex- 
posure of men to various dangers, a tendency to an excess 
of females in civilized communities. And such an excess 
forms a disturbing, if not a dangerous, element in society, 
destroying the natural balance of the sexes, and in some 
cases leading to serious evils; as may be seen in Great 
Britain, where a preponderance of 800,000 females leads 
to such horrible exhibitions of vice and sin as cannot be 
openly described. We know how female infants have 
been destroyed by their parents in non-Christian lands, 
and all are familiar with the bitterness of the lot of Ori- 
ental women, where the mutilation of the opposite sex 
tends to still further derange the natural balance of the 
race, and so prepare the way for the spread of polygamy 
and the horrors of the harem. 

A facetious writer, after narrating her experiences in a 
vain endeavor to secure employment in an overcrowded 
city, ventured to suggest that some Herod who would 
devote his time to the destruction of female infants would 
be a public benefactor. This is substantially the solution 
of the problem arrived at by the Chinese, which illus- 
trates the exalted moral and social tendency of the teach- 
ings of Confucius and Buddha, so dear to skeptical hearts, 
and which renders necessary such notifications as the one 
found by a missionary who, visiting the grounds of a 
Chinese nobleman, and passing among the venerable 
trees, shady paths, and beside the beautiful lake, with its 
bridges and islands and summer houses, saw on a large 
sign, in Chinese characters, 

" PLEASE DON'T DROWN GIRLS HERE." 

Christians are horrified at such a condition of things, 
but there is a Godless and Christless heathenism at their 
own doors which leads to results tenfold more horrible 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 93 

than death in infancy and innocence. The poet who had 
gazed upon wrecked and ruined womanhood, crushed by 
poverty and toil, and then trampled by the unclean hoofs 
of unbridled lust, uttered the wail, 

" O God ! that bread should be so dear, 
And flesh and blood so cheap ! " 

and this cheapness of flesh and blood is the direct result 
of an excess of the female population, in a sinful and 
vicious community. 

In a perfect condition of society, without deaths from 
vice or violence, there might be no inconvenient excess 
of the female sex under the ordinary birth-rate; and in 
a pure and well-ordered community, such excess, if 
it existed, might be attended by no special evil results. 
But fallen humanity is far from perfection, and the evils 
resulting from this state of things are neither few nor 
small. 

The rule of force which ever prevails outside the influ- 
ence of the Scriptures, makes woman's lot one of sub- 
jection and degradation; and an excess of females in 
any locality, under these circumstances tends to cheapen 
and degrade them. But no such cheapening and waste- 
fulness of God's precious handiwork was possible under 
the provisions of the Mosaic law; for the natural ten- 
dency of the extension of this period of maternal seclusion 
after the birth of a female child, would be to slightly 
reduce the number of births of females; the births in 
families composed mostly of girls being thus less frequent 
and less numerous than in the case of the opposite sex. 
An excess of male births of course would be an element of 
special strength to the Jewish nation. For, while a Jewish 
maiden who married a Gentile lost her nationality, a Jew 
marrying a Gentile woman brought her into the nation, 
and so increased its strength. And it is stated that even 
to the present day, as might be expected from this law, 



94 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

the proportion of births of males to females is greater 
among the Jews than among their Gentile neighbors; the 
tables showing that among the Jews 112 boys are born 
to 100 girls; while among the Gentiles there are but 105 
boys to 100 girls; giving the Jews an excess of seven per 
cent, over the Gentiles in the birth-rate of males.* 

By such simple and effective enactments — the full pur- 
port and value of which was probably not apparent to 
many even of those who obeyed them — did the law of 
Moses secure ends which all other human legislation has 
failed to effect, preserving the purity of the family, the 
health of the parents, the vigor of their offspring, main- 
taining the balance of the sexes, preventing over-popula- 
tion, and quietly and indirectly effecting results which 
the wisest human lawgivers have been powerless to ac- 
complish; and this in accordance with physiological laws 
of which the world has been in ignorance for ages, and 
which have only been discovered in our own generation. f 

Such a law, imposed on Christendom to-day, would be 
a priceless boon to thousands who are walking in weari- 
ness and wretchedness toward open graves. It would 
stay the ravages of dire and deadly diseases, would foster 
affection, hinder quarrels, prevent disgust and divorce, 
and produce a chaste, vigorous, self-centred race, superior 
in moral character and stamina to anything which modern 

* Valuable Jewish vital statistics may be found in The Life of Christ, by Prof. 
Sepp of Munich. 

t Renouard, in his History of Medicine, translated by Dr. Comegys, as quoted by 
Prof. L. T. Townsend, makes these statements: " The writings of Moses constitute 
a precious monument in the history of medicine, for they embrace hygienic rules of 
the highest sagacity. ... In reading, for instance, those precepts designed to regu- 
late the relation of a man to his wife, one cannot repress a sentiment of admiration 
for the wisdom and foresight which made such salutary regulations a religious duty. 
. . . Apart from the religious ceremonies connected with them, might it not be said 
that they are extracts from a modern work on hygienics ? But what more than this 
excites the astonishment of physicians, is the tableaux that Moses has made of the 
White Leprosy, and the regulations he established to prevent its propagation,"— 
The Bible in the Nineteenth Century, p, 42. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 95 

usage and custom is likely to develop; preventing those 
weaknesses and ailments which send men to unscrupulous 
quacks as sheep to the slaughter; guiding the erring for 
counsel to the priests, whose lips were to keep knowledge; 
and laying a foundation for a physical vigor like that 
of the Jewish race, which more than thirty centuries has 
failed to deteriorate or destroy. The continence and the 
ablutions, now prescribed by physicians, were then made 
obligatory by divine laio, which went to the fountain 
head, demanding that men should be holy in body and 
in spirit, excluding the transgressor and the sensualist 
from the house and worship of God under pain of death, 
and making possible a pure domestic life in the midst of 
the pervading apostasy and corruption. These few Mo- 
saic laws were worth more to the Jewish nation than tons 
of quack medicines, and cart-loads of books written by phy- 
sicians to instruct people in their duties in these respects. 
And though infidels may scoff at them, their wives would 
doubtless hail them as a priceless boon, if they could only 
understand their import. And we should see fewer 
faded women and fewer jaded men, if the people of this 
age were instructed to conform their lives to the health- 
ful interdictions and requirements of the Mosaic law. 

THE POOR MAN'S LAW. 

It has been said most bitterly, that " There is one law 
for the poor and another for the rich." We need not 
bring proofs of the truth of this statement. Every one 
knows that laws are usually framed by wealthy and in- 
fluential people, and to a great extent they are framed in 
the interest of the rich, and not for the benefit of the 
poor; and it is to such facts that we owe many of the 
revolutions and rebellions which convulse the world. 

The law of Moses was especially a poor man's law. 
Not that injustice was to be done in the interest or for 



96 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

the benefit of the poor. Right is right, whether among 
rich or poor. So it was said, " Thou shalt not speak in a 
cause to turn aside after a multitude to wrest judgment, 
neither shalt thou favor the poor man in his cause." Ex. 
xxiii. 2, 3. " Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judg- 
ment. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor 
honor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness 
thou shalt judge thy neighbor." Lev. xix. 15. 

But having thus guarded against the injustice of favor- 
ing a poor man in judgment because he was poor, the 
Lawgiver proceeds to protect and provide for the poor. 
" If there be with thee a poor man, one of thy brethren, 
.... thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine 
hand from thy poor brother, but thou shalt open 
thine hand unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient 
for his need in that which he wanteth. . . . Thou s'halt 
surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved 
when thou givest unto him. . . . For the poor shall never 
cease out of the land; therefore I command thee, say- 
ing, Thou shalt open thine hand unto thy brother, to 
thy poor, and to thy needy.'''' Deut. xv. 7-11. "And 
when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not 
wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou 
gather the gleaning of thy harvest; and thou shalt not 
glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen 
fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor 
and for the stranger. . . . Thou shalt not oppress thy 
neighbor, neither rob him. The wages of a hired ser- 
vant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. 
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block 
before the blind; but thou shalt fear thy God." Lev. 
xix. 9-14. " And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your 
land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwell- 
eth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, 
and thou shalt love him as thyself." Lev. xix. 33, 34. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 97 

" Six years thou shalt sow thy land and shalt gather in 
the increase thereof, but the seventh year thou shalt let 
it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may 
eat." Exod. xxiii. 10-11. 

" If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away 
some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to re- 
deem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold. 
And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be 
able to redeem it; then let him count the years of the 
sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to 
whom he sold it, that he may return unto his possession. 
But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which 
is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought 
it until the year of jubilee; and in the jubilee it shall go 
out, and he shall return unto his possession. Lev. xxv. 
25-27. 

" If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor 
by thee, thou shalt not be unto him as an usurer, neither 
shalt thou lay upon him usury. If thou at all take thy 
neighbor's raiment to pledge, thou shalt restore it unto him 
by that the sun goeth down; for that is his covering only, 
it is his raiment for his skin; wherein shall he sleep? 
and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that 
I will hear; for I am gracious." Exod. xxii. 25-27. 
" When thou dost lend thy neighbor any manner of loan, 
thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. 
Thou shalt stand without, and the man to whom thou dost 
lend shall bring forth the pledge without unto thee. 
And if he be a poor man, thou shalt not sleep with his 
pledge; thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when 
the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his garment, 
and bless thee; and it shall be righteousness unto thee 
before the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not oppress an 
hired servant that is poor and needy, whether it be of 
thy brethren or of thy strangers that are in thy land 



98 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

within thy gates; in his day thou shalt give him his 
hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is 
poor, and setteth his heart upon it; lest he cry against 
thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee." Deut. xxiv. 
10-15. 

The highest fine imposed by Moses in punishment for 
any crime was about fifteen dollars. Money of course 
was much more valuable then than now, but such a law 
could not be regarded as oppressive. 

The law of Moses made no provision for imprisonment 
for debt. Other nations have crowded their prisons with 
men whose only crime was poverty. It is said that in the 
eighteenth century, four thousand unhappy individuals 
were condemned to prison every year for misfortune and 
poverty, and were treated like criminals and outcasts. 
Oglethorpe succeeded in 1728, with the aid of Parliament, 
in delivering from jail great multitudes of these unhappy 
creatures. In the United States, even as late as 1829, it 
was estimated that there were as many as 3000 unfortu- 
nate debtors confined in the prisons of Massachusetts, 
10,000 in New York, 7000 in Pennsylvania, 3000 in Mary- 
land, and a like proportion in other states. It was not 
until between 1821 and 1845 that imprisonment for debt 
in the United States was abolished except where fraud 
was reasonably suspected.* 

The land laws of Israel were framed especially for the 
poor. The land was divided by lot among the different 
tribes of Israel, and this division, dating back to the es- 
tablishment of the nation in Palestine, clearly shows that 
the law under which they held their land was not an in- 
vention of modern writers or legislators, but was given 
by Moses before they entered into Palestine. The law of 
Moses provided for every man a home and a farm. He 
was born heir to land, and his homestead was inalienable. 



* See E. L. Brace, Gesta Chrisli, pp. 409, 410. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 99 

He could not be dispossessed of his inheritance. In case 
of poverty he might lease his land until the year of jubi- 
lee, or bind himself to servitude for a limited period, but 
at the year of jubilee all conveyances of land were void 
except those transferring houses or gardens within the 
limits of cities or villages. These could be sold abso- 
lutely; but the land itself, the farms and vineyards and 
fields no man could sell. An improvident father could 
not dispossess his children of their rights in the land of 
Israel. Nor could any creditor, by any claim, possess 
himself in perpetuity of his neighbor's land. "Home- 
stead exemption," which has been advocated by some, is 
simply a provision of the old Mosaic law; just as the 
provision by which debts outlaw at the end of six years 
is a relic and reminder of the institution of the Sabbatic 
year among the Israelites, when debts were canceled and 
bondmen went free. 

This division of land laid the foundation for an inde- 
pendent, diligent, and thrifty community; and had this 
land system been incorporated in modern law, as have 
other provisions of Mosaic law, how different would have 
been the condition of vast multitudes of people to-day, 
who, destitute of land, have been crowded into cities and 
villages, where they have not a spot on earth which they 
can call their own, and do not even possess a grave. 

For instance, in Scotland the land amounts to nearly 
nineteen millions of acres (18,946,694). Of this amount 
twelve persons hold more than one-fifth, or over four 
millions of acres (4,339,672), and seventy persons hold 
9,400,000 acres. Seventeen hundred persons hold nine- 
tenths of the whole territory of Scotland, leaving for the 
three and a half or four millions of people who remain 
less than two millions of acres (1,894,669). Is it any 
wonder that tens of thousands of families are living 
crowded into single rooms in the great cities of Scotland ? 



100 THE WONDEEFUL LAW. 

The area of Great Britain, outside of London, contains 
a little more than seventy-two millions of acres of land 
(72,117,766). This would allow about two acres to each 
inhabitant. But of this land, more than one-fifth of the 
whole, or over fifteen millions of acres (15,303,165), be- 
longs to 525 of the nobility, comprising 28 dukes, 33 mar- 
quises, 194 earls, 52 viscounts, and 218 barons. Below 
the nobles are about 10,911 landed gentry, each owning 
one thousand or more acres of land. The 11,436 nobles 
and landed gentry thus possess over fifty-two millions of 
acres of land (52,083,095), thus owning more than two- 
thirds of the soil of Great Britain, leaving a little more 
than twenty millions of acres of land (20,034,671), to be 
divided among the thirty-four or five million inhabitants, 
which if equally distributed would allow them less than 
two-thirds of an acre each. But as this is mostly con- 
tained in farms of less than a thousand acres, a very large 
proportion of the people never possess one foot of land, 
until they are buried. 

Both the Old and the New Testaments are full of com- 
mands, precepts, and exhortations to care for the poor. 
What other nation ever had a law compelling men to 
lend to the poor without interest? "What other nation 
ever had a law allowing the poor and the traveler to eat 
and fill their hands with fruit from any vineyards and 
orchards which they passed, only prohibiting their taking 
any vessels or bags with them to carry fruit away?* What 
other law ever forbade the taking a pledge from a widow 
for her indebtedness, or required a pawned garment to 
be returned to a poor man at night? What other nation 



*A poor man in Scotland, in 1885, was charged with having stolen two apples 
from a garden in Dundee. The person pleaded guilty, declaring that he was at the 
time starving for want of food. The magistrate said he " could have applied for 
relief at the proper quarter," and sentenced him to forty days' imprisonment. And 
while these lines -were being written, a little hoy not ten years old was lying in jaii 
in 3oston for taking two pears from a neighbor's yard. 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 101 

ever had laws requiring that the wages of the workman 
should be paid, not quarterly, monthly, or weekly, but 
before sunset every night? What other nation had a law 
forbidding men to curse the deaf, or put a stumbling- 
block in the path of the blind? What other nation had 
a law forbidding the husbandman to reap the corners of 
his fields, or gather the gleanings of his harvest, or the 
scattering grapes of his vinej^ard ; but commanding him 
to leave them for the poor and the stranger ? What other 
people had a law which forbade the muzzling of the 
ox as he was treading out the corn, or which protected 
the birds upon their nests, and commanded men to show 
kindness to beasts in distress, even though they belonged 
to their enemies ? What other nation had a law which 
required men to love their neighbors as themselves, and 
forbade them to cherish grudges against them, and pro- 
hibited malice, tale-bearing, and revenge ? What other 
nation ever had a law which gave every man an in- 
heritance of land, and so secured it that even the king 
on his throne could not take it from him; and so arranged 
it that if he himself was compelled to part with his land, 
he could not sell it outright, but could redeem it at any 
time when able, and if not, at the end of the jubilee 
period his children could go and claim their ancient in- 
heritance? What nation, outside the influence of the law 
of Moses, ever had a law which sacredly reserved every 
seventh day for rest, and forbade people to require or per- 
mit their servants, or their beasts, to do any servile work 
on that day ?* Surely, if there ever was a law which was 
emphatically a law for the poor, the law of Moses was 
that law. We might search the records of all ages, from 



* For facts in relation to the Sabbatic law, indicating its salutary character and 
its adaptation to the physical necessities of both man and beast, consult the au- 
thor's pamphlets, Remarks on "The Mistakes of Moses, 1 " p. 16, and Atheism and 
Arithmetic, chapter iv.; being Nos. 6 and 15 of the Anti-Infidel Library. 



102 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

the "beginning to the present time, without finding an- 
other law so favorable to the poor, so full of sympathy, 
humanity, righteousness, and truth, as this law. And the 
necessity for it is obvious. The rich can care for them- 
selves, but the poor need protection. They cannot cope 
with power and wealth, and their struggles against op- 
pression often plunge them into deeper woes, from which 
human lawgivers fail to extricate them. But God in his 
law remembered the poor — it was the poor man's law; 
and when the gospel came, it was a grand proof of Christ's 
Messiahship that to the poor the gospel was preached. 

THE ORIGIN OF THE MOSAIC LAW. 

There can be no law without a lawgiver. All laws 
must spring from some authoritative law-giving power. 
No private individual can make or enforce a law. 
Whence, then, did the Jewish nation derive their law ? 
The law exists, and has maintained its existence for ages. 
How did it originate? Most laws when promulgated, 
bear upon them the story of their origin, as enacted by 
parliament, or by some legislative body, ordained by the 
assembled representatives of the people, or issued as the 
decrees of some king or autocrat. They must have au- 
thority from some source behind them, or no one will ac- 
cept or heed them. If the law be proved a forgery, it at 
once loses all right to our regard ; it is a mere nullity. 

But that nation had no law-making power; they had 
no legislative body; but their kings and executive officers 
were solemnly charged to read, study, and enforce laws 
which were already made. Amultitude of vexatious and 
petty restrictions have since derived a partial authority 
from the traditions of the elders, but none of them ever 
had the force of laws, or were universally accepted. 
Prudential regulations were instituted in cases of emer- 
gency by the assembled heads of the tribes; but these 



THE WOXDEKFUL LAW. 103 

did not affect nor supersede the fundamental laws of the 
land, which were unchanged and unchangeable. 

Now these laws must have been made at some time and 
place, and by some law-making power. They could not 
have been imposed upon the people without some author- 
ity. Since other laws have the date of their enactment, 
and the place where and the authority by whom they were 
enacted, surely if the laws of Israel were of human origin 
they should bear some token of authorship and authority. 
They were not borrowed from other nations, for no other 
nation ever had such laws; they were not ordained by 
kings, for they existed before the kings were born. In 
them was embodied the title by which every Israelite held 
his farm and his home; and as Israel never had a parlia- 
ment or a legislature, assembling annually to make laws, 
and as no acts of any such Jewish law-making body are on 
record, the only reasonable conclusion at which we can 
arrive is that the law under which the Israelites lived was 
given on Mount Sinai at the time of the founding of 
their commonwealth. 

Every page of the Mosaic law gives evidence of the 
circumstances of its origin in the wilderness of Sinai. 
It speaks not of temples, palaces, and cities, but of the 
camp, and the tabernacle, the pillar of cloud and fire, the 
dropping manna, and water from the smitten rock; and 
it continually points forward to future days, when Israel 
should enter their own land, and be established there as a 
nation, and dwell in peace within their own borders. 

The endless details connected with the erection of the 
tabernacle and the requirements of the Jewish law, for- 
bid the thought of forgery or fiction. The directions 
for building the tabernacle; the boards, the corners, 
tenons, pillars, sockets, and vails; the measurements, 
cubits, and all the details of architecture, bear the unmis- 
takable impress of reality. No writer of fiction would 



104 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

fill sixteen chapters with such dry particulars and de- 
tails. So accurate are the specifications of material, form, 
and size, that a skillful mechanic, taking the books of 
Moses, can reconstruct every part of the ancient taber- 
nacle, and exhibit it as an illustration of the accuracy of 
the specifications contained in the Mosaic law. 

The book of Levitcus gives us an account of the es- 
tablishment of certain ordinances, rites, sacrifices, laws 
and rules, concerning food, raiment, marriage, health, 
etc. ; and true Jews to this day, though scattered through- 
out the world, observe these laics so far as their circum- 
stances will permit. They do not eat of the things 
forbidden in the book of Leviticus; they bathe themselves 
as commanded, and attend to the hygienic prescriptions 
contained in that book. Why do they, in all quarters of 
the globe, observe these same requirements, unless they 
were once the laws of a united nation? And how came 
that nation ever to observe those laws which claim a 
divine origin, unless the Jewish nation knew they were 
laws given to Israel by God through Moses ? 

Some modern critics, who, while indebted to Chris- 
tianity for education, position, and support, devote their 
time to proving that the Bible is the work of impostors 
and deceivers, assert that the books of Moses were prob- 
ably forged by some zealous priestly reformers, who 
were endeavoring to effect a restoration of the ancient 
worship and a reformation among the Israelites, perhaps 
about the time of the reign of King Josiah. 

It has been suggested that we may sometimes find out 
the real character of a man by ascertaining what he 
thinks of his neighbors. The fact that teachers occupy- 
ing such positions hold that falsehood, deception, and 
forgery, are the means by which "reformers" accomplish 
their work, illustrates the peculiar notions of religion and 
reformation held by these critics. 



THE WONDEEFtTL LAW. 105 

Our view of anything depends largely upon the stand- 
point which we occupy. And many of the critics of the 
present day occupy positions confessedly different from 
those which the Scriptures assign to Moses the man of 
God, and to the prophets who had communion with heaven 
and walked in fellowship with their Maker. Men so 
situated and so constituted have little in common with 
the holy men of old who spake as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost. Their lives are very different from the 
lives of those men who wandered in sheepskins and goat- 
skins, and were destitute, afflicted, tormented. Men 
whose learned lucubrations are largely produced under 
the inspiration of lager beer and tobacco smoke, will 
naturally see things in a different light from those an- 
cient and heroic saints whose lives were devoted to the 
cause of a heavenly Master, and whose hearts were on fire 
with loving zeal and fidelity to his work. 

When persons say that Moses imposed upon the people, 
and gave them laws which he pretended came from heaven, 
we may possibly get a better idea of the critics than of 
the man whom they so severely criticise. Moses the man 
of God, who as a legislator occupied the highest position 
that any human legislator has ever occupied, and gave a 
system of laws superior to any system possessed by any 
nation that ever lived in any land outside of the influence 
of those laics, was in their view simply a patriotic liar, a 
philanthropic fraud, a pious cheat, a deceiver who hum- 
bugged and deluded the people. This is their estimate of 
the character of the giver of the greatest and most impor- 
tant code of laws the world has ever seen. 

But if Moses deceived the children of Israel, and induced 
them to believe that God had given them a law on Mount 
Sinai which he simply invented in a thunder storm, then 
are we to suppose that he also deluded them into the 
idea that they made brick in the land of Egypt ; that they 



106 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

were sorely oppressed; that the first-born of Egypt were 
slain; that they came through the Red Sea dry-shod; and 
that they wandered forty years in the wilderness, being 
fed with manna from heaven and refreshed with water 
from the smitten rock? 

It is certain that the Israelites for ages immemorial have 
believed these things ; it is equally certain that they could 
not have believed and received the books of Moses with- 
out receiving these things; and the man who finds it eas- 
ier to accept all these impossible absurdities, rather than 
to believe that God has given his creatures a revelation 
of his law, would fitly illustrate the remark of the 
Hindoo Brahmin who said to Dr. William Ramsey, 
" Sahib, a little truth is hard, but a big lie is easy to be 
believed!" 

If it be alleged that Moses borrowed his institutions to 
some extent from the Egyptians, this only recalls another 
fact, that generations before Moses was born, for a period 
of eighty years, Joseph, the son of Jacob, controlled the 
destinies of Egypt, and was appointed by Pharaoh "to 
bind his princes at pleasure, and teach his senators wis- 
dom" Psa. cv. 22. If there was anything good in the 
institutions of Egypt, it may be largely attributed to the 
wisdom of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as 
manifested in Joseph, whose "bow abode in strength," 
and whose arms " were made strong by the hands of the 
mighty God of Jacob." 

But though some principles of justice and righteous- 
ness are common to all laws, because without them society 
could not exist, yet the laws of the Israelites differed 
widely from the laws of Egypt. Egypt was under the 
despotic rule of a king; Israel was the world's first re- 
public, — a government of the people, and for the people. 
The subjects of Pharaoh were slaves ; the nation of Israel 
were freemen. Pharaoh ruled Egypt; the nation ruled 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 107 

Israel. The Egyptian government was founded in force ; 
the Hebrew commonwealth arose on the free consent of 
the people.* In Egypt the will of the king was supreme; 
in Palestine the law of God was above king, or priest, or 
prophet; the standard by which was to be tested the 
conduct of both prince and peasant. Under the laws of 
Egypt that nation sunk into groveling idolatries, and has 
now become the basest of kingdoms; while under the 
laws of Moses, Israel, though chastened and dispersed, 
yet maintain their existence and influence, and defy the 
ravages of time and the changes of an inconstant world. 

Says the Chief Justice of New Jersey, while referring 
to these who talk of the dignity of human nature, in itself 
considered, without the aid of divine revelation : 

"When these giants in human intellect can tell me 
whence Moses derived his science in legislation, without 
admitting the supernatural and divine authority of the 
Ten Commandments, I shall begin to listen with more 
reverence to the teachers of human perfectibility. In 
that short and comprehensive code, we find given us a 
perfect rule of action, covering the whole ground of man's 
existence; a rule not only prescribing our duty to God 
and man in our external behaviour, but reaching to the 
secret thoughts and feelings of hearts in every possible 
condition of life, and in all our relations to our Maker and 
our fellow beings. The wisdom of ages, the learning and 
philosophy of the schools, have never discovered a single 
defect in that code. Not a virtue which is not there in- 
culcated. Not a vice in its most doubtful and shadowy 
form, which is not there prohibited. Whence then, I ask, 
did the great Jewish lawgiver derive his spirit of legis- 
lation ? If that code was written by the finger of the 
Almighty, let us bow to it with reverence, and seek no 
better rule of life, nor any wiser principle of action. But 

* Exodus xix. 8 ; xxiv. 3: Deut. v. 27; Joshua xxiv. 16-27. 



108 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

if they emanated only from the capacious mind and were 
dictated by the wisdom of Moses, — then Moses was a 
wiser, a more learned man than any of our new teachers; 
and I had rather be under his jurisdiction and keep his 
commandments, than learn new rules of civil polity and 
social intercourse from the most learned and wise of the 
present day."* 

WAS MOSES* LAW THE WORK OF PRIESTS? 

It is sometimes flippantly asserted that the Jewish law 
was concocted by a pack of priests, to deceive and de- 
fraud the people. This is incredible; for the Jewish law 
forbade the priests to hold any real estate except a house 
and garden. The tribe of Levi, from which all the priests 
came, was the only tribe which was deprived of the priv- 
ilege of holding landed property. Now priests are very 
much like other people; they are inclined to take care of 
themselves and look after their own interests. Indeed, 
in modern times the priests have sometimes succeeded in 
monopolizing most of the land in the country, and revolu- 
tions have been necessary to extricate the soil from their 
grasp. No priest ever made a law forbidding himself 
and his fellow priests to hold real estate. Priests do not 
bite off their own noses. If priests had made the law 
they would probably have reserved to themselves a double 
share of the land, instead of cutting themselves off from 
holding any of it. 

If it be claimed that these laws were the work of 
priestly impostors, the question arises, how came these 
priestly impostors, who were themselves cheats, liars and 
hypocrites, to invent laws exceeding in excellence all that 
the wisest legislators have produced? And by what 
means could such priestly hypocrites enforce upon the 
people distasteful and unwelcome laws, when according 

* Chief Justice Homblower. Charge to the Grand Jury of Essex County. Jan. 
7, 1843. 



THB WONDERFUL LAW. 109 

to their own laws they themselves possessed no legisla- 
tive power, and had not even authority to collect their 
own tithes, being solely dependent upon the voluntary 
contributions which the people brought for their support ? 

If it be asserted that these laws were enacted by some 
body of Israelitish legislators, then it may be asked how 
a barbarous nation, without any law whatever, or with 
only a rudimentary and imperfect legal system, was able 
to frame, invent, contrive, and originate a system of 
laws superior to anything produced by the wisest legis- 
tors of ancient or modern times. 

The great test of excellence in the skeptical world is 
"the survival of the fittest." Judged by this rule the 
Mosaic law is the fittest; for it has survived all others. 
Could such a law have been originated by lawless barba- 
rians, or hypocritical priests, or leaders who had no op- 
portunity for instruction in righteousness, and whose 
lives perpetually outraged the principles upon which the 
law is based ? The law is here as a fact. It claims divine 
origin. Those who deny that it came from God will do 
well to trace it to its source. The fountain from which 
it sprang was higher than Jewish barbarism or priestly 
hypocrisy and fraud. 

LAW AND CIVILIZATION. 

There can be no civilization without law. In its absence, 
society relapses into anarchy and barbarism. But the Is- 
raelitish people were civilized, and hence must have been 
under law. The Israelites were mainly agriculturists; but 
agriculture is impossible without the protection of law. 
They were land-holders; but men cannot hold land with- 
out the guardianship of law. The nation of Israel was a 
republic; but a republic is only practicable where the peo- 
ple are educated and fitted for self-government. The 
judges and rulers of Israel were elected from among the 



110 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

people, and ruled by popular consent; but popular elec- 
tion presupposes subjection to law. Where law does not 
exist, the will of the strongest becomes the rule, and the 
result is disorder and despotism. The Israelites pos- 
sessed an educational and religious system, and one of 
the twelve tribes was set apart for this work, and its 
members were scattered among the other tribes for this 
purpose. The Israelites had also sanitary laws, which 
are still observed, and which make them the most health- 
ful people on earth. The family life of Israel was under 
the control of laws which were most wise and benefi- 
cent. The execution of justice was provided for by law; 
the defense of the land was committed to a citizen soldiery; 
and the government, whether republican or monarchial, 
was based upon a written constitution, and fundamental 
and unchangeable laws. 

These facts clearly show that the nation of Israel must 
have had a law, and a law framed in accordance with the 
requirements of human nature, and in some respects in 
advance of the highest type of human government now 
in existence. 

Whether a law which forbids all sin and inculcates all 
virtue, which has outlived the laws of all ancient em- 
perors and conquerors, which has entered into the juris- 
prudence of the world, and exercises to-day a greater in- 
fluence on the morals and manners of the world than any 
other law that was ever made, — whether such a law was a 
fraudulent trick of a contemptible, hypocritical liar and 
impostor, or whether this law, the most perfect that the 
world has ever seen, sprang from the bosom of God, the 
fountain of all law, and was sent forth for the guidance 
of the erring sons of men who were groping in darkness 
and dying in despair, is a question which seems easy to 
answer. Man, as a being possessing moral nature and 
distinguishing between right and wrong, must be the 



THS WONDERFUL LAW. Ill 

creature of a Creator who loves the good and hates the 
evil, who has linked sin with sorrow, and righteousness 
with blessing. And if the Creator desires the well-being 
and well-doing of men, why should he not make known 
his desires to his creatures, and place them on record for 
their instruction ? But if there be any such law which 
bears the impress of the divine hand, and which exhibits 
energies analogous to a divine vitality, it is that law which 
came by Moses, which flames forth among the nations 
as a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, in the 
darkness of a world of heathenism, pollution, and sin. 

It is not easy to produce a complete and perfect law. 
The work of the wisest lawgivers exhibits many defects. 
Most codes of laws have grown up gradually, and have 
been based on the experience of successive generations. 
The great lawgivers of the world, from Lycurgus, Draco, 
Solon, and Numa, down to Justinian and Napoleon, have 
given codes to people who were already subject to law, 
and whose organization had become established by the 
slow processes of national development. The great phi- 
losophers, Pythagoras, Zoroaster, and Confucius, delivered 
their sage counsels to their fellow- citizens, to be accepted 
or rejected as their judgment should approve. Moham- 
med, after fifteen years of solitary meditation, after an 
acquaintance with the Mosaic and other systems of law, 
built up a code and presented it to a people who were al- 
ready subject to government and law. 

Moses began at the beginning. After forty years' so- 
journing in the wilderness he came to Egypt. A stranger, 
without force or arms, he undertook to found a new na- 
tion. But before he could establish a government for 
the Israelites, he must conquer their oppressors, he must 
kindle a spirit of liberty within the hearts of the Israel- 
itish bondmen ; he must organize them into a nation, he 
must find them a country in which to dwell, and give 



112 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

them a code of laws in obedience to which they could live 
and prosper through successive ages. He did all this; 
and though the other philosophers, statesmen, and legisla- 
tors of antiquity have sunk into the depths of forgetful- 
ness; and though the Israelitish nation is broken up, their 
capital destroyed, and their land desolated, and they are 
dispersed and mingled among all the nations of the earth; 
yet not only do they maintain their existence, but the 
whole civilized world feels the quickening influence of 
the law which Moses gave, which, joined with Christianity, 
has purified their social institutions, destroyed paganism, 
established civil liberty, modified legislation, and infused 
into civilization those principles which, more than any 
others, have elevated and blessed mankind. 

DO THE LAW AND GOSPEL AGREE? 

There are persons who object to the Law of Moses as 
being not in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. They 
say the Old Testament and the New Testament do not 
agree. And why should they agree? The Old Testa- 
ment contains a code of laios, which describe sin and con- 
demn sinners. The New Testament contains a message 
of mercy, which gives sinners hope, and offers pardon to 
the guilty. The Old Testament gives directions for the 
orderly establishment of a commonwealth, and for the 
government of a single nation located on a limited terri- 
tory in Palestine. The New Testament records a message 
peculiar to no nation, designed to be sent into all the 
world, but containing no rules whatever for the estab- 
lishment of any commonwealth, or any civil government 
for any nation. From the New Testament we should 
never learn the duties of kings, judges, rulers, or govern- 
ment officials. The New Testament only teaches that 
men should submit to rulers, and so govern themselves 
that they will need no other governing. The New Testa- 
ment points out no way to establish a government, to 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 113 

execute laws, to punish the rebel, the thief, the murderer, 
or the transgressor, in this world. The Old Testament 
gives directions for the establishment of a government, 
the administration of justice and the punishment of crime. 

Of course the Old Testament and the New do not agree, 
for they were never intended to agree. Those who expect 
them to agree know little of either. A chart of the east- 
ern coast of North America would not agree with the 
chart of the northern coast of Africa. Why should they 
agree ? They refer to different matters. Gibbon's Decline 
and Fall of the Roman Empire would not be expected 
to agree with the latest treatise on the theory and prac- 
tice of medicine; nor would a volume of statute laws be 
expected to agree with a book of gospel hymns. 

Before we decide that the Old and New Testaments con- 
tradict each other we need to study the purpose of the 
law of Moses as distinguished from the gospel of Christ. 
When we comprehend the character of both, and distin- 
guish between the two, we shall hear no more about the 
contradictions existing between the Law and the Gospel. 

THE LAW OF MOSES NOT ARBITRARY, BUT SALUTARY. 

The time would fail us to point out all the excellencies 
of this wonderful Law. The more carefully we examine 
its provisions, the more clearly we shall see that its pre- 
scriptions were not arbitrary; that its requirements were 
in agreement with the nature of things; and that long 
life, health, peace and prosperity came by its observance. 
Of course there are many people too wise to be taught by 
Moses. They will eat pork, and suffer with tapeworms, 
or die of trichiniasis ; they will give loose rein to animal 
passions, and become decrepit and prematurely old; they 
will neglect the prescribed ablutions, and die of dirt and 
cholera; they will cut their mustaches and ruin their eye- 
sight, and shave their throats till they suffer and die of 



114 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

bronchitis and consumption; they will eat all manner of 
mixtures and abominations, and then dose and doctor to 
cure the dyspepsia; they will disregard the weekly day of 
rest, and consequently suffer from nervous prostration, and 
be obliged to take a six months' vacation to recuperate 
their wasted energies; they will disregard the provision 
for rest from business every seventh year, and push and 
struggle on until about the tenth year, when overproduc- 
tion will glut the markets, and bring widespread panic 
and financial distress, as has been the case every ten 
years for a century and a half; they will prate about "the 
mistakes of Moses," deride the wisdom of godly old age 
and pious experience, and sneer at the notions of 
those "old fogies" who believe their Bibles, and whose 
hoary heads are crowns of glory, being found in the way 
of righteousness; but they will never notice that while 
the house of prayer is often filled with " old fogies," the 
haunts of vice and sin are thronged only by "young 
fogies," for most of the Devil's "fogies" never get to be old, 
because he sends them to their graves in their brown 
hair; for those who disregard the requirements of God's 
law do not live out half their days. 

The skepticism of the age busies itself about "the 
mistakes of Moses," but why the mistakes of Moses rather 
than any one else ? There were millions of men who lived in 
the time of Moses, and before his time, and after his time, — 
why do we not hear something about their mistakes? 
Why do not infidels discuss the mistakes of Pharaoh, the 
mistakes of Nimrod, the mistakes of Sennacherib, and 
Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar ? Why is it that Moses 
must be singled out from all the men of antiquity and 
subjected to criticism and reproach? That fact indicates 
the position which Moses occupies in this world. No 
man can be named in all the ages before Christ, so prom- 
inent, so noteworthy, so influential, as Moses. We know 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 115 

,/xore of his life, his history, his character, his acts, than 
jf any other man who lived during three thousand years. 
The nation which he founded has survived all its contem- 
poraries; the institutions which he established have out- 
lived all the other civil and social institutions of that age. 
The religious worship which he ordained has outlasted all 
the worship of those days; and if we should traverse the 
east, — Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Assyria, and Arabia, we 
should find to-day not one example of the idolatrous wor- 
ship which then overspread those lands. Not one of the dei- 
ties then worshiped is to-day adored or honored by any 
living man. The worship of the holy bulls, golden 
calves, consecrated cats, divine crocodiles, sacred monk- 
eys, and adorable vegetables of Egypt is utterly abol- 
ished, and those deities have left behind them only hid- 
eous sculptures, mummied carcasses, vague traditions, 
and indecent memorials. The temples where the Phe- 
nicians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans 
worshiped their gods of high and low degree are in 
ruins, and not one of those deities is now adored. But 
over the wreck of ruined temples, and prostrate images 
and idols that have been cast to the moles and bats, 
there comes a voice, which, rolling down through more than 
thirty stormy centuries, and sounding not only through 
the length and breadth of the civilized world, but among 
the nations which still sit in darkness and the shadow of 
death, proclaims that mighty word which Moses testi- 
fied of old, " The Lord our God is one Lord, and Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all 
thy soul, and with all thy might." Deut. vi. 4, 5. The 
ancient oracles are dumb; the images of Egypt are for- 
saken; the idols and idolatries which were followed by 
the rich, the learned, the cultured, and the mighty of 
those times are lost in eternal oblivion; while the words 
which Moses spake are held in everlasting remembrance, 



116 THE WONDEEFUL LAW. 

and the God whom Moses served is known and honored 
in all lands and among all nations. 

There were many laws and many lawgivers in ancient 
times. The Pharaohs issued their mandates, the Assy- 
rian monarchs uttered their decrees, the proud rulers of 
Babylon sent forth their commands for the government of 
the peoples whom they had conquered, the laws of the 
Medes and Persians were unchangeable, and other nations 
had their different codes, — but where are they all to-day? 
Buried in eternal forgetf ulness. Even wise men seek in 
vain to find them, and no man is so abject as to fear or 
obey them. But the law that was given by Moses on 
Mount Sinai, the law which was laid up in the ancient 
tabernacle, and borne through all the changeful scenes of 
Israel's ancient pilgrimage; the law which ruled king 
and prince, priest and peasant, and which established a 
government more just, humane and salutary than the 
world has ever known; that law which, when disobeyed, 
brought down the curse of heaven upon its violators, and 
which, when Jerusalem had finally fallen, was carried in 
the Roman triumph as the choicest of all the conqueror's 
spoils, and laid up in the palace of the Roman emperor; 
that law to-day is more widely known than any law of 
any lawgiver, ancient or modern, living or dead. 

That law has not only wrought its substance into all 
the legislation of civilization, but it has found its way 
into barbarous and savage lands. It has been published 
in more tongues than any other law the world has ever 
known; and wherever we find truth and righteousness, 
purity and religion, intellect and intelligence, science and 
art, discovery and invention, education, order, morality 
and good government, we find this law has gone before, 
as a schoolmaster, to bring men to Christ, that they may 
learn of Him the way of life and peace. 

Some of the provisions of Moses' law were of local 



THE WONDERFUL LAW. 117 

application and are obsolete; some of its requirements 
could only be observed by the Jewish nation in their own 
land; some of its precepts have reference to circumstan- 
ces and conditions which have ceased to exist; but the 
principles and substance of the moral precepts, the hygi- 
enic and sanitary prescriptions, and the general tenor of 
the Mosaic law, survive all past changes; and the books 
of Moses are to-day well worthy the attention of every 
candid, honest, upright, and thoughtful man. 

Under the influence of that law, notwithstanding all 
the discouragements and difficulties of its present con- 
dition, the Jewish nation still maintains its existence and 
manifests its power; and the gospel of Christ, which 
had its origin in the Jewish nation, and was an outgrowth 
of the Mosaic law, and a fulfillment of Jewish prophe- 
cies, is spreading as it has spread for centuries, and is an 
instrument of blessing to a world which without it would 
be dark as the shadow of the tomb. Shall not all those 
who say with the Psalmist, "Oh, how love I thy law! 
it is my meditation all the day," learn also to look to 
Him of whom Moses in the law and prophets did 
write, who came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, 
and who Himself is the end or object of the law for 
righteousness to every one that believeth ? 

To-day the Jewish people are in dejection and dark- 
ness, notwithstanding to them were committed the oracles 
of God. They need something more than a law which 
brings condemnation and death to the guilty; they need 
a Saviour, to turn away transgression from Jacob, and 
bring redemption to Israel. They need that promised 
Seed of Abraham who should bless the world, that seed 
of David who is given for an ensign to the nations, and 
a leader and commander of the people. 

If the scattered sons of Israel who so often pray, " Open 
thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things 



118 THE WONDERFUL LAW. 

out of thy law," could fully comprehend the force and 
meaning of that revelation which was committed to their 
fathers, they might learn that these long ages of suffering 
and chastisement which they endure are the direct re- 
sult of a long-continued rejection of that Prophet whom 
Moses foretold, who was to be like unto himself, and 
whom they were to hear in all things. Oh that even now, 
notwithstanding their revolt, they would accept the prom- 
ise of divine blessing, and, forsaking their unbelief, look 
on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn for him as one 
mourneth for his only son! Then they might say with 
the prophet who described the sufferings and sorrows of 
Him who grew up before the Lord "as a tender plant," 
but who was despised and rejected of men, a man of sor- 
rows and acquainted with griefs, — " Surely He hath borne 
our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet did Ave esteem 
him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was 
wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our 
iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, 
and by his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep 
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own 
way; and the Lord hath laid on hitn the iniquity of us all." 
When repentant Israel, taking on their lips these words 
which their own prophets have spoken in the name of the 
Lord, shall turn to Him from whom they have departed, 
and by whom they have been chastised, they will find 
that he is still favorable to his land, and merciful to his 
people. Oh that the scattered nation, for so many years 
without a king, a priest, an altar, a sacrifice or a sin-bearer, 
may soon learn to look upon their own suffering Messiah, 
as the " Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
world," and " seek the Lord their God, and David their 
king; and fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter 
days." Hosea iii. 5. 



w- 


<^ i v 
















c, x>. 


_ 






<K ' 















. 



<3, ' 












^ 


•/ 












% 




J 


■^ 

s 






°* 


% 








Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

a worLd leader in paper preservation 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



